[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Corrupt Government See other Corrupt Government Articles Title: Either Trump Fires These People Or The Borg Will Have Won Source: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity URL Source: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc ... ple-or-the-borg-will-have-won/ Published: Jul 21, 2018 Author: Moon of Alabama Post Date: 2018-07-21 20:29:35 by Hondo68 Keywords: None Views: 2987 Comments: 22 President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the "resistance" and the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a (virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda. One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far still does not add up to the disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed. The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the "deplorables" who support Trump and his policies: [P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. His 'isolationist' economic policies make Trump an enemy of the globalists: Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force US workers into the global meat-grinder. The weapon industry and the military recognize that the "war of terror" is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new "enemy" that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the US could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the US elections and openly says so. He does not believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy. Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment. He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real threat to the American (economic) supremacy. This week was a prelude to the coup against Trump: Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a “traitor” who had “committed high crimes” in holding a friendly summit with Putin. It can’t get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire political and media establishment in the US as a “treasonous” enemy of the state. Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: “If you work for Trump, quit now”. Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John Kelly rallied others against him: According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election. Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed interview for that: The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director’s team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and was comfortable talking with her. Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump’s judgment— such as the president’s decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides present beyond interpreters — and revealing the rift between the president and the intelligence community. FBI Director Wray also undermined his boss' position: FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a “straight shooter,” and said the Russia investigation is no “witch hunt.” Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat remained active. A day later Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his president's policy: Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement about new military aid to Ukraine: "Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its illegal occupation of Ukraine. … The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations with the US vision for global security and stability." Pat Lang thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wray and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who is overseeing the Mueller investigation. My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter stage. But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political appointees who work "at the pleasure of the President." The US has the legislative and the judicial branch as a counterweight to the president who leads the executive. The "deep state" and its moles within the executive should have no role in that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for him. Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the lawful policy directives of their higher up. All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies. But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating their policies to him. It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work "at his pleasure," publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these people or the borg will have won. Reprinted with permission from Moon Over Alabama blog. Poster Comment: Brief summary: Chief of staff John Kelly Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats FBI Director Wray Secretary of Defense Mattis Recommended to fire later: Mueller, Rosenstein (1 image) Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: hondo68 (#0) Consider Trump and his Bolshe-Zio poodle tribe in the context of Putin's correct analysis of how Western Culture is being subverted: VxH  posted on  2018-07-21   21:52:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: hondo68 (#0) Source: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity OMG, hondo….YGBSM. Or, is there REALLY such a thing? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-21   23:43:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: hondo68 (#0) Author: Moon of Alabama No Way !!! This is even more hilarious. Please….PLEASE…tell me his article is satire and that you posted it under the wrong category. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-21   23:50:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Gatlin (#3) (Edited) Author: Moon of Alabama Moon of Alabama is a highly respected international news, politics, economics, philosophy and blog. Problem is, you can't handle the truth. Stick with your MSM Fake News, snowflake! Alabama Song If you've ever listened to a group called The Doors, you might recognize this tune (Whisky Bar). Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-22   0:44:10 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: hondo68 (#4) (Edited) Moon of Alabama is a highly respected international news, politics, economics, philosophy and blog. Sez who? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   1:48:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: hondo68 (#4) Moon of Alabama is a highly respected international news, politics, economics, philosophy and blog. Highly respected? Jew-baiting okay at Moon of Alabama, but not me. Gerhard, the Moon of Alabama blogger It’s very rare nowadays to find Jew-baiting on nominally leftwing forums but that’s exactly what I ran into during a brief time commenting at Moon of Alabama, an “anti-imperialist” website that like Global Research and Voltairenet can be relied upon to defend the Syrian dictatorship to the hilt. I very rarely check in on Moon of Alabama but after doing a Google search on Sy Hersh’s “Whose Sarin” to see where it had shown up, I was not surprised that they had crossposted it. In a bear-baiting exercise, I posted a couple of comments that challenged the accepted wisdom of the blog owner and his regulars fully expecting them to gang up on me. But the response of one Rowan Berkeley who blogs at http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/ came as a complete surprise. He was responding to my calling attention to European far right support for Bashar al-Assad: Now, Louis, you must understand that the fact that [x] expresses rhetorical support for [y] simply tells you nothing about [y]. Indulging in this kind of guilt by involuntary association is a very common Jewish weakness in argument. A very common Jewish weakness in argument? What the fuck? This was the first time I had run into Jew-baiting since abandoning alt.politics.socialism.trotsky about 10 years ago when a character who uses the tag “Dusty” began harping on “globalists”, all of whom happened coincidentally to be Jews. It didn’t take him long to become a full-blown neo-Nazi with frequent crosspostings from Brother Nathanael Kapner, including a recent one titled “Racial Traits Of The Jews”. If you go to Rowan Berkeley’s blog, you won’t find quite the same level of knuckle- dragging stupidity of “Dusty” but there’s no mistaking what he is about based on a December 13th posting titled “doesn’t it ever strike you as odd that ALL US treasury, fed, world bank, etc officials are jews?” Meanwhile, when I posted a comment there on December 17th calling attention to a Tea Party delegation visiting Lebanon at the behest of Mother Agnes, it was removed unceremoniously. One wonders how secure these “anti-imperialists” are in their politics when a single message out of 80 that goes against the grain cannot be tolerated. Apparently, Jew-baiting is acceptable but questioning the Baathist faith of the Moon of Alabama blog owner, a German named Gerhard, is not. Just to make sure that people understand where I am coming from, I don’t use the term anti-Semitism since that has become so inextricably linked with mass movements of the 1930s that presented a mortal threat to Jews. The only people today in that kind of danger are Muslims, especially those whose rights are being abrogated in the name of fighting “jihadists”. This, to be sure, is one of the primary goals of Moon of Alabama—to demonize Muslims after the fashion of Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff and Paul Berman. Using the same inflamed rhetoric about “Wahhabists” and “Salafists”, the regulars at Moon of Alabama would have been invited to the Bush White House back in 2003 if the sole criterion were Islamophobia. For example, Gerhard is capable of saying things like “Why is the U.S. so much interested in creating a Sharia law state in Syria?” This moron is apparently more perturbed about Sharia law than he ever was about MIG’s firing rockets into tenement buildings in Homs or Aleppo. The Islamophobia that runs rampant at Moon of Alabama is exactly the same as found in the ultraright today. If you want to check this for yourself, just Google “Seymour Hersh sarin” and see what turns up. In addition to Democracy Now et al, you will find links from Fox News’s hardcore rightist (I guess that is a tautology) Greta Van Sustern and Newsmax.com, the website launched by conservative journalist Christopher Ruddy in 1998 with financial support from the family of the late Central Intelligence Agency Director William J. Casey and ultrarightist billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. This common cause between “anti-imperialists” and the hard right around the need to defend Bashar al-Assad prompted blogger Ibrahim Moiz, a young Pakistani graduate student, to make these profound observations: The other danger is a rather subtler one. It also involves the blanket label of the entire Syrian opposition as a homogenous breed of radical Islamic jihadists–Salafists is the popular term nowadays, last decade it was Wahhabists–who want to establish the always-dreaded global caliphate. There is certainly a spillover of disturbingly fanatical jihadists, most notably from Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, into Syria; their conquest last winter of the eastern stronghold of Raqqa is an alarming development that signifies their growing influence. Yet to assume that all factions in the opposition are as irredentist, fanatical and extreme as ISIL is to fundamentally misunderstand the situation at best, and to turn it into a self- fulfillment at worst. To paint the entire opposition, on political rather than realistic grounds, as radical fundamentalists is to marginalize the more inclusive, open and reconcilable elements among them. The same scenario has taken place time and again over the past twenty years–in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Algeria, Chechnya and Somalia. Among the more surprising hosts of this viewpoint was the usually-excellent Boiling Frogs blog run by repeatedly-gagged former intelligence agent Sibel Edmonds: in an alarmingly broad-stroked screed last year, contributing writer William Engdahl submitted a wildly swinging attack on, among others, the Syrian opposition, branding them all as hardline Sunnis called “Salafists” and “Wahhabites” whose raison d’etre is to wipe out “moderate Muslim” movements, such as mystical Sufism, in favour of a rigid revivalist hard line. Among his examples of “Salafi terror” was, along with the (Deobandi, not Salafi) Taliban leader Mohammed Omar, Egypt’s only legitimately elected president in history, Mohamed Morsi, who through that same twisted, broad-stroked logic was deposed in Egypt this summer during a bloody coup whose leaders termed any opposition as “terrorists” who deserved to be bloodily eradicated (a line repeated by, among others, the Wahhabi government of Saudi Arabia–so much for that theory) (3). Another usually excellent website, Global Research, which has long critiqued Western narratives in war zones, published an article by Michael Chossudosky that blamed the rise of death squads in Syria solely on opposition Sunni jihadists, never mind that both Sunni radicals and the same Iran-affiliated Shia extremists who had dominated post-Baathist Iraq have used such tactics. I privately contacted Chossudosky to pursue this rather unlikely claim further but have received no response. (4) It is the same line toed by, among others, American neoconservatives such as David Frum and Richard Perle, their Muslim apologists like Stephen Schwartz and Zuhdi Nasser, and the brutal dictatorships of Central Asia, who have resorted to branding any dissent as Wahhabism to justify a savage crackdown for the past twenty years. While criticism of Wahhabis and Salafis is certainly not unwarranted–and there are certainly some voluble Wahhabis and Salafis, including Al-Qaeda, who uphold an extremely rigid and exclusive interpretation of Islam and authorize violent persecution of Shia and other minorities–the Muslim Matters website points out (5) that it is a usually politically motivated label, used by foreigners since colonial Britain to brand any native Muslim opposition to imperialism without much regard to accuracy. Hardly a black-and-white measure, in short, of judging radicalism. The killer of the Pakistani governor of Punjab, for instance, was a member of the generally more liberal Sufi persuasion, while the West’s closest Arab partner, Saudi Arabia, is the birthplace of what is broady termed Wahhabism. In Tunisia, meanwhile, Salafist party leader Saleh Bouazizi has condemned violence and refused to cooperate with violent Salafis; a self-described “true Salafist” Marwa, offered her interpretation of a Salafi as any emulator of Prophet Muhammad’s followers, which would put most observant Muslims in the category (6). The practical dangers of such an approach–as if the detainment of random suspected Wahhabists and co in Guantanamo Bay and similar facilities is not enough–is the marginalization of the more inclusive Islamists and the empowerment of radicals like Al-Qaeda. While critics of intervention, such as the Irish parliamentarian Clare Daly (in an otherwise superb and rousing speech that railed at the Irish media and government’s slobbering reception of the Obamas last spring), have branded the Islamist rebels radicals and defended the Assad regime on the grounds of it being “secular” (7), the secularism of Baathist Syria (and indeed, of most Arab and Muslim regimes, from Central Asia to Egypt) is of a very different sort from the non-partisan, above-sectarianism brand seen in the West. In the Muslim world, where religion tends to be a far more public and encompassing affair than in the West, secular rulers–from the Young Turks to Islam Karimov to the Assads to Saddam Hussein–have sought to impose their usually nationalism-inclined rule not by rising above sectarian differences but by exploiting them. https://louisproyect.org/2013/12/20/jew-baiting-okay-at-moon-of-alabama-but-not- me/ Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   2:21:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: hondo68 (#4) (Edited) Moon of Alabama is a highly respected international news, politics, economics, philosophy and blog. Media Bias Check. Moon of Alabama LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources. Factual Reporting: MIXED History Moon Of Alabama is a political blog founded in 2004 and according to its about page they are an independent and open forum for members of the another blog called the Whiskey Bar. Moon Of Alabama states it purpose as “to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon’s Whiskey Bar writings.” A Daily Kos article describes Blogger Billmon (pseudonym) as one of the earliest and leading guest bloggers of Daily Kos and a self admitted financial writer working for a big Wall Street firm. Funded by / Ownership The editor and the person who runs the blog is anonymous and the about page states that “Bernhard started and still runs the site and you can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA_at_aol.com (replacing _at_ with @).” Moon of Alabama does not have advertising, but they do have a donate button, so we assume this is the primary method of funding. Analysis/ Bias Moon of Alabama looks at the issues from progressive perspective, for example this article describes Trump cabinet as follows: “Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel’s further expansion” The majority of blog posts utilizes emotionally loaded headlines such as “Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over – It Won’t” and “John Bolton Wants No Deal With North Korea Or Iran – But Is There Any Other Choice?” Moon of Alabama utilizes factually mixed sources such as RT News, Fox News, as well as credible sources such as Bloomberg, NY Times, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Politico, cisac.fsi.stanford.edu and blogs such as johnhelmer.org. Generally, all information is sourced properly with hyperlinks to mostly known media sources. Overall, we rate Moon of Alabama Left Biased based on story selection and word choices that consistently favor progressives and Mixed factually due to anonymity associated with who runs the site. Otherwise, Moon of Alabama is well sourced to credible/factual information. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Problem is, you can't handle the truth. Problem is, you best check where your “truth” is coming from. Moon of Alabama looks at the issues from progressive perspective, for example this article describes Trump cabinet as follows: “Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel’s further expansion” The majority of blog posts utilizes emotionally loaded headlines such as “Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over – It Won’t” and “John Bolton Wants No Deal With North Korea Or Iran – But Is There Any Other Choice?” My God, man....how can you be so fucking STUPID? You and Deckard NEVER fact check anything. All you two do is read a click-bait headline that sounds like something you agree with....then you copy and paste. You two are almost as dumb as Stoner. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   2:49:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Gatlin, loves the Wahhabis (#6) (Edited) While criticism of Wahhabis and Salafis is certainly not unwarranted–and there are certainly some voluble Wahhabis and Salafis, including Al-Qaeda, who uphold an extremely rigid and exclusive interpretation of Islam and authorize violent persecution of Shia and other minorities–the Muslim Matters website points out (5) that it is a usually politically motivated label, used by foreigners since colonial Britain to brand any native Muslim opposition to imperialism without much regard to accuracy. Hardly a black-and-white measure, in short, of judging radicalism. The killer of the Pakistani governor of Punjab, for instance, was a member of the generally more liberal Sufi persuasion, while the West’s closest Arab partner, Saudi Arabia, is the birthplace of what is broady termed Wahhabism. In Tunisia, meanwhile, Salafist party leader Saleh Bouazizi has condemned violence and refused to cooperate with violent Salafis; a self-described “true Salafist” Marwa, offered her interpretation of a Salafi as any emulator of Prophet Muhammad’s followers, which would put most observant Muslims in the category (6). Go hug a Saudi Wahhabi Prince, and then do a sword dance with them, like Donnell! You McCain/Hillary terrorist neocons disgust me. Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-22   3:11:01 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: hondo68 (#8) IGNORE POST- Off topic and not relevant to the current discussion. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   6:56:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Gatlin (#7) (Edited) Problem is, you best check where your “truth” is coming from. This from the poster who regularly posts anti-libertarian diatribes from leftist sites and most recently a RPG, fantasy world gaming site. Oh, the irony! Frikkin' hypocrite! “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff. Deckard  posted on  2018-07-22   9:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Deckard (#10) Problem is, you best check where your “truth” is coming from. This from the poster who regularly posts anti-libertarian diatribes from leftist sites. Oh, the irony! Frikkin' hypocrite! You really need to pay attention. I said where the “truth is coming from.” I did not say where it is published or posted. Leftist sites and rightist sites both carry truth....and both carry lies. It is beholden to ones intelligence to determine which is truth and which is falsehood. When you check where truth is coming from, you will find in epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. Not to simply categorize the location where it is published posted as evil. To see where truth is coming from, it is important to understand the philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation. Do not se the rules of logic to try and distinguish truth as those rules have no abilit to distinguish truth on their own. You as an individual must determine what standards are acceptable to distinguish truth from a malicious falsehood. Jonathan Dolhenty states there seem to be only three functional, effective tests of truth. He lists these as the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth. Dolhenty, Jonathan. Truth and Certainty. The Problem of Knowledge: A brief introduction to epistemology. Retrieved 2007-10-31. I find the following listed criteria represent those most commonly used to determine where truth is coming from. 1 Authority 2 Coherence 3 Consensus gentium 4 Consistency (mere) 5 Consistency (strict) 6 Correspondence 7 Custom 8 Emotions 9 Instinct 10 Intuition 11 Majority rule 12 Naïve realism 13 Pragmatic 14 Revelation 15 Time 16 Tradition It matters not where the anti-libertarian polemic attacks I make come from, which I post for open consideration. What matters is that the anti-libertarian articles I post are most definitely truthful. It is readily apparent to everyone, however, that you can never dispute the information in the articles to prove it wrong. Sll you can do [as hondo. Stoner, Liberator, and buckeroo also do] is to use ad hominem to direct a barrage of personal attacks against me while NEVER addressing the positions taken in the articles. Sad. Am I getting “too academically deep” for you? If so, then let me know and I will try to “dumb it down” to your lower intelligence level. Shall we say, that of a 10-year old child? That is NO ad hominem attack....I am merely trying to be constructively helpful to you. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   11:17:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Gatlin, Stoner, Buckeroo, Hondo68 (#11) I find the following listed criteria represent those most commonly used to determine where truth is coming from. 1 Authority 2 Coherence 3 Consensus gentium 4 Consistency (mere) 5 Consistency (strict) 6 Correspondence 7 Custom 8 Emotions 9 Instinct 10 Intuition 11 Majority rule 12 Naïve realism 13 Pragmatic 14 Revelation 15 Time 16 Tradition YOU?? Nice try, Gilligan. You -- a serial plagiarist -- lifted the above STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA, under "Criteria of truth". You did NOT attribute it to Jonathan Dolhenty. Oh -- and it seems you forgot to include #17 -- "See Also", and #18, "FOOTNOTES" to "your" so-called "list": Contents 1 Authority 2 Coherence 3 Consensus gentium 4 Consistency (mere) 5 Consistency (strict) 6 Correspondence 7 Custom 8 Emotions 9 Instinct 10 Intuition 11 Majority rule 12 Naïve realism 13 Pragmatic 14 Revelation 15 Time 16 Tradition 17 See also 18 Footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth Liberator  posted on  2018-07-22   11:34:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Liberator (#0) One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far still does not add up to the disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed. While I agree with the entire assessment and resolution by "Moon of Alabama" of those who've colluded against President Trump, "one" had better end his conditional pseudo-support and negative opinion of Trump and become a YUGE "fan" of him -- and do so quickly and completely. It's "Us" vs. "Them". MoA also ought to mention 0bama by name instead of nebbishly referring to him as "predecessor". One's enemy must be named. The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them...Those who sabotage him [President Trump] should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the lawful policy directives of their higher up. ABSOLUTELY AGREE. But easier said then done considering their vast breadth and depth of power. "Moon of Alabama" etal would do well to reconsider their constant petty squawking over "his antics and most of his policies" and circle the wagon. All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies. But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating their policies to him. Moon of Alabama really does sound kind of...bi-polar. If President Trump cannot be defended and supported against a fascist oppressive "borg", then why does MoA even bother? Liberator  posted on  2018-07-22   12:05:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Liberator (#12) Why in the world do you waste your time criticizing a well-known hypocrite of the like: tater? It has always proved itself to harm a discussion board. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-22   12:16:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Gatlin (#7) Moon of Alabama utilizes factually mixed sources such as RT News, Fox News, as well as credible sources such as Bloomberg, NY Times, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Politico, cisac.fsi.stanford.edu and blogs such as johnhelmer.org. So the information at Fox News is "factually mixed", but all the rest of the sources are credible? misterwhite  posted on  2018-07-22   16:53:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: buckeroo (#14) Yeah I know. It was a slam-dunk exposing the ol' windbag as pirating someone else's work again. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-22   18:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Liberator, Stoner, Buckeroo, Hondo68 (#12) YOU?? Nice try, Gilligan. You -- a serial plagiarist -- lifted the above STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA, under "Criteria of truth". You did NOT attribute it to Jonathan Dolhenty. Oh -- and it seems you forgot to include #17 -- "See Also", and #18, "FOOTNOTES" to "your" so-called "list": PFFFT!! I never said it was MY list. I specifically stated that “I found the list commonly used”. Ergo, you simpleton, since I said the list was COMMONLY used then it would be blatantly obvious to anyone besides some lamebrain blithering idiot like you….that it was NOT a list that I had personally constructed. I show links in all other posts so I simply forgot to do that here. Okay, BIG FUCKING DEAL. Now, what the hell you gonna do about it? Not a DAMNED thing…except write your WHINEY LITLE post. lol!!! You can take your amazing discovery and shove it up your ass for it gives me absolutely NO concern….NONE whasoever. It changes nothing with me as to what I post or how I post. I will continue along my way merrily doing what I want to and when I want to unless Stone directs me otherwise. If that should ever happen, then I will immediately graciously comply with his request or direction. As for you, well….you just keep on hawking my every post and absorbing my every word.. Oh, and be sure to let me know if I miss another attribution. BTW, I will in the future rely on you to post the attrition for me should I again forget to do so. “Thank You For Your Service” to me in doing that. LMAO. It just occurred to me that I should intentionally leave out an attrition from time to time just to check that you are still paying close attention and still closely following each of my most informative posts. Not saying I will and not saying I won’t. I’m just saying … No doubt that Tooconservative will be along to give you a big “Amen” on the ruly earth shattering and ultimately amazing discovery. Since TC has me on bozo and I can’t say hello to him, I therefore ask that you please say hello to him for me when he arrives BTW – I did provide a hyprlink to Jonathan Dolhenty’s Truth and Certainty. The Problem of Knowledge: A brief introduction to epistemology. Retrieved 2007-10-31….so it should be obvious that I was inentionally avoiding making attritions. I now leave you with this….it is as I said: PFFFT!!" No big deal....but I do thank you kindly for taking time to post to me. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   22:57:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Liberator (#16) buckeroo: Why in the world do you waste your time criticizing a well-known hypocrite of the like: tater? It has always proved itself to harm a discussion board. Liberator: Yeah I know. It was a slam-dunk exposing the ol' windbag as pirating someone else's work again. Maybe you really need to listen to buckeroo since “ole tater” is going to do his thing and there is nothing any of you can do to stop or change that. On the other hand, WGAF if you waste your time? Even though it changes NOTHING, it is after all YOUR time to waste. Eh? lol … Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-22   23:05:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Gatlin (#17) (Edited) You can take your amazing discovery and shove it up your ass Don't cry tater tot. Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-22   23:36:34 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Liberator (#12) (Edited) You -- a serial plagiarist -- lifted the above STRAIGHT FROM WIKIPEDIA, under "Criteria of truth". You did NOT attribute it to Jonathan Dolhenty. Woah, now Hoss! You – ignoramus asshole – made an egregious ERROR when you stated that “[I] did NOT attribute [the “criteria listed”] to Jonathan Dolhenty”. What am I talking about? After reading the following instructions, you need to go here and arrive at Criteria of truth on WikipediA. Upon arriving there, scroll down the page to arrive at “The criteria listed represent those most commonly used by scholars and the general public. [2]”. Now, don’t click on it, but lay your cursor over [2] at the end of that sentence. Viola!!! What do you see there? You see: “Sahakian & Sahakian, Ideas, pg. 3”. So, MISTER KNOW IT ALL, Sahakian & Sahakian authored the “criteria listed” and Jonathan Dolhenty the individual you said I should have attributed the list to....had absolutely NOTHING to do with the list. You were so intensely devoted to finding a “gotcha” on the “Great Gatlin” that you never paid any attention at all to what you were reading. You MUST learn to read for content and not for structure. And furthermore, the next time you ATTEMPT to chastise me for a mistake, you better damn well clean up your own shit first....because I am coming after you ass is I find you making a misake. Oh, BTW - here is the actual book: Ideas of the Great Philosophers Hardcover – 1993 – William S Sahakian. Karma is a Bitch….I am still LMAO at your gross stupidity. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-23   0:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: hondo68 (#19) (Edited) Don't cry tater tot. Me, cry? Never!!! I get great satisfaction and derive happiness out of kicking someone’s ass by proving them wrong when the come after me or showing where they made a more stupid mistake than I did. I just did a good job with that....so I am happy and I am not crying. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-23   1:07:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Liberator (#12) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth LOL ... Some nerve. First you have the audacity to inappropriately chastise me for forgetting to post attrition. Then you go and post a link here that does NOT work. What is the saying about people who live in glass houses ... You are one dumb cluck. Maybe you should give up doing nothing but making PERSONAL ATTACKS on me. No one pays any attention to them outside the perverts in the little circle jerk you run to for support. But then, if attacking me excites you, then continue to BRING IT ON....big boy, have at it. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-23   7:17:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com