[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]Okay, zk, I was trying to be nice, but you’re asking for it. You mentioned that you had issues with your mother that came to light while reading that other thread. That seems to be the source of your angst.

No, no never proved me wrong on that thread, and all of your ranting, raving, name-calling, and jumping up and down will never change that. What you did prove is is that you have a rather unhealthy obsession with the topic that doesn’t really affect you (unless it’s more the issues with your mother that are causing you such personal distress). Most of my posts had nothing at all to do with you; you were the one who kept trying to turn the discussion around to yourself. You come across as irrational and hysterical.

I had repeatedly said that we could agree to disagree, and attempted to leave it on a friendly note, but you were the one who kept pushing it. You can keep it up if you’d like, but if you want to continue that discussion, you need to revive that thread.

BTW, it would help both you and Pri if you would actually stick to the issues and stop flinging horse manure at the internet in the hopes that some of it will stick. Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to further your positions.

I had mentioned in the other thread, and I mention it here, again: It would serve you well to look in the mirror to see if you’re projecting some of your own issues onto others. You’re much more guilty of the things that you’ve accused me of.[/quote]

Your hysteria speaks quite clearly for itself. You really should seek help.

I’m not obsessed with that other thread. I don’t really care about it that much. I must admit I might be a little obsessed with your inability to see that you’re wrong, though. I do find it fascinating. That’s why I keep bringing it up.

I showed you exactly where I proved you wrong, and you ignored it (again). Why is that? Let me guess: It doesn’t look like anything to you.[/quote]

Tell you what, zk… You print out that thread and the related PMs and take it to a psychologist who specializes in gender issues. Let’s see if they can get through to you.

[CA renter]

LOL! 🙂

[CA renter]

Ask phaster! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]As for the troll charge, this poster signed up 5 days ago, and has only commented on this thread. You can make of it what you will, but I’m an admin on a number of political FB pages, and we were hit with a bunch of spam attacks with the “fake news” bit. This new poster has the stench of a paid operative (and yes, the most definitely do exist — that is a fact).[/quote]

They’re watching you.[/quote]

Nothing to see here. Just move along…

‘“It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital.

“That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about,” he said. “It runs the risk of being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime political operatives and high-level consultants.”

The task force designed to stop the spread of online misinformation and misogyny is the brainchild of David Brock, a Clinton confidant who once made a career of spreading such misinformation and misogynistic attacks against her and Bill Clinton. His critics say he kept his taste for dirty tricks when he switched sides to become one of the Clintons’ most valued operatives.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

BTW, do you seriously believe there aren’t paid trolls? You’re incredibly naive if you do.

[CA renter]

As for the troll charge, this poster signed up 5 days ago, and has only commented on this thread. You can make of it what you will, but I’m an admin on a number of political FB pages as well as some other groups, and we were hit with a bunch of spam attacks with the “fake news” bit. We had been dealing with them throughout the election season. This new poster has the stench of a paid operative (and yes, the most definitely do exist — that is a fact).

[CA renter]

Okay, zk, I was trying to be nice, but you’re asking for it. You mentioned that you had issues with your mother that came to light while reading that other thread. That seems to be the source of your angst.

No, you never proved me wrong on that thread, and all of your ranting, raving, name-calling, and jumping up and down will never change that. What you did prove is is that you have a rather unhealthy obsession with the topic that doesn’t really affect you (unless it’s more the issues with your mother that are causing you such personal distress). Most of my posts had nothing at all to do with you; you were the one who kept trying to turn the discussion around to yourself. You come across as irrational and hysterical.

I had repeatedly said that we could agree to disagree, and attempted to leave it on a friendly note, but you were the one who refused to do so and kept pushing it. You can keep it up if you’d like, but if you want to continue that discussion, you need to revive that thread.

BTW, it would help both you and Pri if you would actually stick to the issues and stop flinging horse manure at the internet in the hopes that some of it will stick. Your ad hominem attacks do nothing to further your positions.

I had mentioned in the other thread, and I’ll mention it here, again: It would serve you well to look in the mirror to see if you’re projecting some of your own issues onto others. You don’t seem capable of discerning when you are right or wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=gogogosandiego]You’ve gotten so much wrong in this thread I’m not even sure where to start….

The Tea Party publically “started” over a rant on TV against people potentially getting mortgage modifications in 2009. It had nothing to do with bailouts or “socializing losses”. In reality the groundwork for the Tea Party had been laid for years prior with the main goal being smaller government and less regulation. It was not even remotely a grass roots movement. If you were involved you were duped.

You presented several “stories” (I’ll select a few) that you feel the MSM got ”wrong”. This is the crux of your problem, real news doesn’t tell stories. It’s doesn’t try to predict the future.

“the Fed is unwilling to do anything about it” (how would anyone know if they are unwilling? What exactly should the Fed do? Who says they should do anything? You? How is this news? it’s pure uninformed speculation)

“As the Fed attempts to stimulate the economy, it will require more and more stimulus to get incrementally weaker and weaker responses.” (the Fed again! Methinks you don’t really understand what the Fed does, but certainly a vast prediction like this is newsworthy! There have literally been 1000’s of articles about the Fed, its powers, its limitations, its role, etc. written in the past 8 years – news, opinion and otherwise)

The DNC is conspiring with the Clinton campaign and major financial and political backers to win the Democratic nomination. If she wins, she will lose to Trump. (duh, Bernie wasn’t a Democrat and had some pretty wacky ideas, of course they were, only rabid Bernie supporters feel it’s some grand conspiracy)

Trump will win the Republican primary, and if he runs against Clinton, he will win the general election, too. (reporters are supposed to be clairvoyant?)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being drafted behind closed doors.. (zzzzzzzzzzzz…all trade deals are negotiated confidentially. The same things in the TPP are already present in other trade deals, this has been widely reported)

You then go on to say “accurate information on many of these topics was available only via alternative news sources”. You’re not looking for accurate information; you are looking for information that supports your biases.

The irony of you trying to tell others what is news is truly amazing.

If you want to read some real news and be informed pick up the NYT or the WSJ, two of the best in the world.[/quote]

Thank you for your input, gogogosandiego, Pigg member of 5 days.

Let me educate you a bit about your assertions.

1.) The Tea Party:

The Tea Party started with Rick Santelli’s rant; that much is correct. I was watching it live when it happened. He was ranting about using taxpayers’ money to bail out borrowers who made irresponsible decisions. Rick Santelli had been very vocally opposed to the bank bailouts before this rant, and it was seen as a continuation of the anti-bailout message. Here is a clip of him months before the “Tea Party” rant:

I was one of thousands who spent 2-3 weeks writing, faxing, emailing, and calling legislators and regulatory agencies in opposition to the bailouts. As noted in the video I linked above, which was from a Wall Street protest in 2008, well before Santelli’s rant, the energy and momentum were there before February 2009.

From September 2008, before Santelli’s rant (many of these people were involved with the original Tea Party movement):

It was indeed about socializing losses, as taxpayers were being asked to bailout both banks and borrowers who had caused the credit/housing bubble by engaging in reckless financial behavior.

When I speak about the original Tea Party protesters, I’m referring to the original grassroots protesters, not Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks organization.

……………

2.) Regarding the news stories:

Yes, the news tells stories. They often present facts (or fiction) with a certain bias by highlighting certain facts, and suppressing other facts or perspectives, in the process. They help control the public discourse by reinforcing which perspectives are acceptable or unacceptable. In a media world that is controlled by the government or other agencies, the narrative is designed to promote, oppose, or discredit certain views. The NYT and the WSJ are perfect examples of biased MSM sources (I would argue that most sources are biased, which is why people need to pay attention to a variety of sources that promote different viewpoints).

FYI, “news story” is an actual term: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/news-story

3.) The Federal Reserve:

I’m well aware of what the Fed does. Many people were trying to warn about the internet/stock market bubble in the late 90s, and Greenspan even acknowledged the “irrational exuberance” in 1996, but there was no recommendation to clamp down on speculation, and rates remained in that same general range until the bubble burst…when they were subsequently lowered, which helped set of the credit/housing bubble.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

Perhaps, if the PTB had listened more to alt-news sources who get their information from the real world instead of the usual think-tank/establishment “experts” who consistently get things wrong, we could have avoided many of the dislocations and much of the damage created over the past ~20 years.

4.) The DNC and the primary election:

You indicate that, “duh,” the DNC is obviously going to collude with one of the candidates. And while Bernie wasn’t officially a Democrat prior to his decision to run for POTUS, he had caucused with the Democrats for many years, and the Democratic Party allowed him to run in the Democratic primary election. The DNC violated their own rules:

“Section 4. The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as
may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

[Charter, Article 5, Section 4]

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.11.2009.pdf

And if you think it’s acceptable for a political party to essentially appoint a candidate prior to any elections, do you also think that we should just forego elections altogether, and simply let the PTB appoint our “elected” officials, instead?

5.) As for needing to be clairvoyant to see that HRC would lose to Trump… No, one didn’t need to be clairvoyant, just informed. This outcome was obvious to anyone who was working on the ground during the campaign. Even the polls (nearly every single poll) showed that Sanders consistently outperformed Clinton against the Republican candidates, including Trump. The DNC shot themselves in the foot by forcing Clinton down our throats. They were warned about this throughout the election season, but chose not to listen to those who knew better.

6.) The secrecy surrounding the TPP was unprecedented, and the media remained silent about the deal for years. Congressional representatives were not able to read or hear about what was being negotiated for years while it was being drafted, but corporate interests were given full access throughout the entire process. The fact that you can justify this in your mind shows a complete lack of understanding about how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Not only did the TPP include many new items, it was also unprecedented in its scope and reach.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/tpp-negotiations-unprecedented-secrecy-around-ottawa-meetings

Your insistence on the MSM being the sole source of unbiased information shows a lack of insight and intelligence, or (as your new user ID could indicate) you’re one of the trolls unleashed on the internet to counter factual stories coming out of alternative news and information sources. Either that, or you’re just a new ID created by an existing poster in order to make it look like you have more support for your ideas than you really have.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]And I never concluded that they were going to shut down Piggington.[/quote]

Whew…then everything’s going to be just fine.

Then why are you so hysterical?

OMG!! they’ve included A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION!!![/quote]

Pri, you are the only one being “hysterical” with your “histrionics.”

[edited to delete unkind comments that don’t add to the discussion]

As I’ve said above, perhaps you think that this isn’t a threat to free speech. But to those of us who pay attention to these things, this legislation is chilling.

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]More of your exceptional debate skills are on full display here, yet again,[/quote]

I’m not debating you. I’m mocking you.

In this thread you’ve actually gone from something you read on a fake news site, attributed to Tyler Durden – a fictional character who represents yet another fictional character – to the conclusion that “the PTB are going to shut down piggington.com.”

And you claim this logic is evidence of your superior intellect.

And who’s going to execute on this plan to shut down websites? Government employees of course, whom you’ve argued for years are the in that special class of people who actually “earn” their wealth.

It’s hard to keep track of the good guys and bad guys in your imaginary world. Myself and others have asked you to reconcile the inconsistencies in your histrionics. You’ve tried, and it’s been mildly entertaining to watch.

So tell us, since you put such an emphasis on “reading comprehension” : what specific text in this law (the one that actually passed) gives anyone authority to shut down a website like piggington?[/quote]

You, the one who’s consistently shown an inability to read (and you’ve done it again right here in this post), are mocking someone else who’s consistently proven you to be wrong about so many issues? You’re delusional, Pri.

For one thing, I didn’t get the information from Zero Hedge. I got it from other activists who also do research on important news. I linked to the ZH site’s story about it, where they presented a summary of the legislation, because there was no MSM coverage to link to.

And I never concluded that they were going to shut down Piggington. This assertion of yours is yet more evidence of your inability to read and your consistent tendency to twist other people’s words into something they never said. I said that they could shut down sites like Piggington (as an example, because it’s not part of the MSM, and has presented opposing viewpoints in the past) because any news/information source that goes against the establishment’s narrative are likely to be targeted as “propaganda” and “disinformation” sources.

What could give them the authority to shut down “propaganda and disinformation” sites?

——————
“(2) Analyzing relevant information from United States Government agencies, allied nations, think-tanks, academic institutions, civil society groups, and other nongovernmental organizations.

(3) Developing and disseminating thematic narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at United States allies and partners in order to safeguard United States allies and interests.

(4) Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3274/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Countering+Disinformation+and+Propaganda+Act%22%5D%7D&r=1

———————————-

The language is kept overly broad and allows the government to target just about any source that presents an “anti-U.S.” position. And while its stated mission is to counter “propaganda” outside the U.S., they’ve included this in the bill:

“(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the team described in paragraph (1) from engaging in any form of communication or medium, either directly or indirectly, or coordinating with any other department or agency of the United States Government, a State government, or any other public or private organization or institution because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to activities or communications of the team under this subsection, or based on a presumption of such exposure.”

[same link as above]

Note that the public momentum for this comes from the Wikileaks exposure of the DNC and Clinton operatives’ emails. The Russians, if they are responsible for the hacked emails, didn’t engage in any electoral fraud of any sort. To the contrary, they exposed the fraud and collusion. As a result, our political thought leaders are ready to start a new war with Russia. This is beyond insane.

As for your nonsensical rants about government employees, I’ve explained to you before the difference between policy makers, government officials, and government employees. There are no inconsistencies in what I’ve written. You need to work on your information retention in addition to your reading comprehension skills.

BTW, the only person living in an imaginary world around here is the one you live in, Pri, with your imaginary friends on whose behalf you continually insist on speaking. You are only one person, and you are only speaking for yourself.

[CA renter]

🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Sites like Piggington can be classified as “propaganda” by this new bureaucracy. Anything that goes against the establishment will likely be labeled “propaganda” if it gets any traction.[/quote]

The jack-booted thugs that will kick in Rich’s door and seize his computers are entitled to a full government pension.

Because they’ve earned it![/quote]

More of your exceptional debate skills are on full display here, yet again, Pri.

You’re right, Pri. Censorship isn’t a threat. As long as we refrain from challenging the PTB, we’ll all be fine. Nothing to see here…just move along.

[/sarcasm]

In countries that impose strict media censorship, how do you think they justify that to their citizens? Hint: It’s not by saying that these news/information sources are valid.

[CA renter]

Yes, your reading comprehension problems are in full bloom here.

Read the name of the legislation and look at the sponsors of the bill. Now, look at the name of the senator whose link I posted, above. This bill was included in the NDAA, and the legislation is new.

You denied that it was signed by Obama, and when I proved that you didn’t know what you were talking about, you tried to change the subject again, as you so often do.

I’m raising the alarm because the people who decide what constitutes propaganda are the very people who will be supporting those who churn out establishment-based propaganda. Sites like Piggington can be classified as “propaganda” by this new bureaucracy. Anything that goes against the establishment will likely be labeled “propaganda” if it gets any traction.

If you don’t see the dangers in this, you’re not thinking clearly.

—————————-

What do these following stories have in common?

1.) There is an internet/stock market bubble and the Fed is unwilling to do anything about it. We’re going to experience a dramatic crash that will wipe out trillions of dollars in unrealized wealth.

2.) Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, and there is no justification for going to war with them. If we go to war, it will leave a power vacuum that has the potential to create an even more dangerous and less stable environment.

3.) Globalism and the “free trade” orthodoxy will harm, not help, the American middle class. It will create a bifurcated social and economic environment where the rich will gain more economic and political power, and the poor will lose power.

4.) There is a credit/housing bubble, and when it bursts, it will cause massive dislocations and result in a deflationary depression/recession that it will be difficult to recover from. As the Fed attempts to stimulate the economy, it will require more and more stimulus to get incrementally weaker and weaker responses.

5.) The DNC is conspiring with the Clinton campaign and major financial and political backers to win the Democratic nomination. If she wins, she will lose to Trump.

6.) Trump will win the Republican primary, and if he runs against Clinton, he will win the general election, too.

7.) California’s Secretary of State (in charge of our elections) has been campaigning for one of the candidates, including speaking at her campaign stops and headlining fundraisers for her. Not coincidentally, poll workers across the state were incorrectly trained on how to handle NPP voters’ ballots, which (along with an unusually high number of VBM ballots that were never received by voters) resulted in an unprecedented number of provisional ballots being used — ballots that have a high exclusion rate. Also, not coincidentally, the Democratic Primary Election was called the day before the most populous state in the nation ever had a chance to vote.

8.) The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being drafted behind closed doors. Even our congressional members are not able to review it while it’s been negotiated. It will create a separate, international, corporate-controlled tribunal that will allow corporations to sue countries if they interfere with the company’s *potential* profit, which can include labor or environmental regulations, etc.

All of these were stories (and there are many more where those come from, as well) that the establishment media either got completely wrong, or they were ignored (even denied) by the MSM. And they all had potentially tremendous consequences. In some cases, these stories were suppressed for years before activists got enough traction to bring them to the attention of the masses so the media could no longer ignore them.

During this time, the activists were told they were “conspiracy theorists” or “bitter jealous renters” or “deluded” or that they “didn’t understand how things work,” etc. Accurate information on many of these topics was available only via alternative news sources, like blogs (Piggington on the housing issue, for example). At every step of the way, those who are in power (yes, the PTB) suppressed the stories and tried to discredit anyone who attempted to bring them to the public’s attention. Any one of these alternative news sources could have been labeled as promoting “propaganda” and “disinformation.”

Some people have an almost perfect record of calling these things correctly. The mainstream media, including all of the “experts” they parade across their stages, have consistently gotten things wrong.

You can believe those establishment “experts” who have, more often than not, gotten things wrong or who’ve suppressed important information if you’d like, but I will stick with those who’ve been proven to be insightful and right, instead.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]

I’ve looked, and you never proved me wrong. You’ve simply proved that you have a different opinion — one that is not based on either experience or education regarding this particular topic. It’s all literally your opinion, and you’re trying to present your opinion as fact. It’s clearly not.[/quote]

This is kind of a dead horse, but at this point I’m really curious how your brain works. Which of these is not a fact, and how do they not prove that you were wrong?

Fact: You said people segregated boys and girls for fear of feminizing boys.
Fact: I said you imagine that.
Fact: You said you didn’t.
Fact: You did imagine it, right there on that thread. You claimed I wanted to segregate boys and girls because I feared feminizing boys.
Fact: I had said no such thing.
Fact: You had imagined it (it wasn’t there, yet you saw it).
Ergo: You were wrong. You do imagine people wanting to segregate boys and girls for fear of feminizing boys. You did it right there on that thread.[/quote]

It is a dead horse. Re-read the thread. I stand by what I’ve written there. What I posted is factual.

Gender stereotyping — a cultural and environmental input — affects how children are segregated, whether they self-segregate, or if their parents separate them into segregated groups. This is a fact.

Many parents segregate their childrens’ playgroups by gender. They often (usually) do this from a very early age. It is also much more common among parents with sons.

[CA renter]

I’ll bold it for you since your reading comprehension skills are so poor.

My link is to the senator’s site — the senator who co-authored this piece of legislation.

[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey][quote=CA renter][quote=zk]Just like somehow you’re not wrong about Obama signing the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” into law.[/quote]

You’re saying that he didn’t sign it?????

It’s obvious who’s avoiding facts and logic…[/quote]

Once again:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3274/actions

The most troubling news in this thread is the example of the deplorable qualifications of some public school teachers.[/quote]

Once again… [edited to add that bold is mine -CAR]

“President Signs Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill into Law

Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has been signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.”

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=F973E46B-AA8C-4F3E-91B4-8EC0FC7F2F3E

Yes, it’s pretty clear that your teachers greatly harmed your ability to read and use facts and logic in your “debates” (if one can call them debates, as you mostly just resort to ad hominem attacks). It is indeed deplorable.

For the record, it can take some time for the congress.gov website to be updated, especially around the holidays. Good thing Zero Hedge was on top of things, though.[/quote]

[CA renter]

[quote=harvey]Tyler Durden and Rob Portman’s website say the president signed it.

The US Congress website says he did not.

And OMG HE SIGNED IT JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS!!!

You choose what you source you want to believe. I’m certainly lot losing any sleep over the semantics politician’s press releases, your tinfoil-hat non-issue, or your arguments that the the lack of evidence is damning proof.

But please don’t stop – every time you post about “the PTB,” the Piggs get a good laugh.[/quote]

Um…look at the site, then look at the name of the legislation, genius.

And what “lack of evidence” are you referring to? The fact that you rarely, if ever, provide any support for your statements?

[Author]

Posts