nanana

Here are some happy images of the medical profession recommending Lucky Strikes: [think before following links] https://tobacco.stanford.edu/cigarettes/doctors-smoking/20679-physicians/ Not sure why people are so trusting of the medical profession. Many amazing care providers but they have to deal with the same corrupting forces that most other professions have to deal with.

Hi @AlwaysOpen, Your critique partially resonates with me inasmuch as I do not agree that non-US citizens don't have constitutional rights. I don't believe the Constitution GAVE anyone rights; I think the Creator gave all humans inalienable rights that the Founders simply piled onto. So, I am horrified that this Administration is gulaging non-citizen residents who speak out against zionist genocide. I think Trump's comments about Canada, Greenland, Gulf of America etc. are a bit strange but they feel like trial balloons more than actual annexations and thus need to be treated differently in analysis. But, there is a huge hole for me in your analysis. It's sort of like not being able to tell the difference between someone in your house because you invited them over for lunch versus someone in your house because they broke a window, snuck in, and started removing your valuables. I am making this stark comparison NOT because I believe all illegal immigrants are committing OTHER crimes, but more because so many dismiss the ORIGINAL illegal entry as a trivial thing. Once this is trivialized, critiques inevitably turn to racism as the only analytical tool in the toolbox. there is another piece missing, and that is that illegal immigration generates massive tax liabilities or debt liabilities for taxpayers, who are obligated by their leaders to fund welfare for illegal immigrants. Would you concede that illegal immigration is a huge enabler of the drug trade, of gangs, and of human trafficking? (I myself do not know that it is, but it seems highly likely that failure to police borders is logically an enabler of all of these things, even if the percentage of illegal immigrants involved in these crimes is relatively small.) I have been hard pressed to explain why people turn to racism as an explanation for "everything" (self-admitted hyperbole), but I recently came across an explanation that I think fits the pattern more effectively, namely territorialism. Many conservative people love all of god's children and all of the cultures they have created wherever they are on the planet, but they are aware that cohabitants of an area take hundreds of years to generate cultures, which help people make sense of everything from small hand gestures (thumbs up), to the way a phrase is understood (e.g., "Death to America"). If you measure in-group versus out-of-group preference, you'll find that a huge preponderance of people all over the world prefer their own group partly because it is REALLY HARD to understand another language, another culture's body-language, another culture's humor, etc. These misunderstandings generate a lot of friction. It doesn't necessarily mean that they hate other races or wish to go to war against people far away. BUT, they don't necessarily want cultures from another territory changing the nature of their society. Much of these frictions can be explained by territorialism rather than racism. I think people can be territorialists but not racists, and I think people can be both. I DEFINITELY believe in racism, but by one measure at least (intermarriage), Brazil and the US are by far the least racist countries in the world. This is already too long a post, but the whole piece about media seems incredibly partisan and fails to recognize the corruption of and loss of credibility of mainstream media, along with the active censorship by the Biden administration, which leaned heavily on social media to censor and shadow-ban (sorry, will label this an assertion since I don't have time to cite sources here, but anyone with any doubt about this can at least look up the Twitter files and Mark Zuckerberg's commentary. Great to see critiques of our government on the site, keep them coming. I'm surprised that after five months of the Trump administration Democrats aren't leaping right into the Libertarian bed to shrink the power of the government :-).

Hi @TaKinGDeePanal, Thanks for sharing your super-thought-provoking thesis and some really interesting sources. It convinces me that you have a point, though for me it isn't proof per se. Still, a great injection of fact and strategic interpretation that enlarged my mental model of what we are living through. It goes so much further when you can see someone's thought process, immediately generates an empathy for a brain in action. I will definitely think of your posts in a different way going forward. Best, @nanana

You question why Dems got so many fewer votes but seem to be completely uncurious about how Biden could get an unprecedented jump in the number of votes in 2020 compared to Obama or Clinton. You then “think” that Musk rigged vote tallies. Any supporting evidence for that “thought”?

Hi @meetme, I just downvoted this because you raise a legitimate concern about corruption and Presidential overreach but you seem to be blind to Biden and Democratic overreach. I’m very intrigued that the US uniparty knows how to frame issues so that partisans are able to pick up on the other party’s abuses but not their own side’s abuses. While we’re so divided we’ll never be anything but prey for the uniparty.

At one time, it wan't a vaccination if it didn't prevent transmission or infection. I guess big pharma successfully changed the definition and fooled people into blaming those who didn't believe in big pharma. I for one don't accept that inversion of responsibility. It's not my fault if people misplace their trust, and it's not an excuse to turn rights into privileges. To use an analogy that may hit closer to home, perhaps barebackers should not be allowed in public spaces since they spread disease and drive up the cost of insurance for everyone.

Sorry Erik62. And all. That was an amygdala hijack. I apologize for the outburst. I do Stand by the view that the initial comment was really inappropriate, but mine was more inappropriate especially if I wish to model civil behavior.

BTW HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT, go fuck yourself if you think you have the right to put people in sterile compounds, you should have had a pink star on your assface and gotten locked up for being a stupid faggot.

How do you feel about kids who die of vaccine injuries, or get pericarditis or myocarditis? Should parents be punished for forcing their children to be injured?

Any lads know how to hook a mouth to a cock at an opera?

Hi @TaKinGDeePanal , I excerpted several things that seem like malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation, along with appreciation for the heads up on the bomb threats, which I either never knew or totally forgot. While I do not wish that our dear censors would subject your unsupported assertions to the same banning that they regularly accept non-leftist unsupported assertions, it would be really nice to see some sources for what you assert here. BTW, I personally have no problem telling the difference between (or at least have a high tolerance for) an asserted interpretation, hyperbole, a hypothesis, an opinion, a "fact" (be it true or false), and a "statistic" (be it logically or illogically cited). I don't have a problem with "gut" either. (Dear censors, consider giving us all some grace to mix our interpretations and assertions in with your love of "facts" of whatever source you think credible.) here are some sources for my assertions: Relates to "pro-Trump MSM/Russian social media disinformation" - Russiagate is a hoax: [think before following links] https://www.racket.news/p/why-is-russiagates-origin-story-redacted. - The Durham Report provides pretty conclusive evidence that FBI/DOJ ignored leads about the "Clinton Plan intelligence" to falsely associate Donald Trump with Russia and acted only on the uncorroborated "Steele Dossier" which hid the Clinton connection: [think before following links] https://www.justice.gov/archives/media/1381211/dl (look at p.78). - although I'm unable to find a citation for the debunking of the Russia social media election interference, this wikipedia article shows the extent of US interference in foreign elections (over 60 citations of US interference versus 15 for Russia. Even if you add the Soviet Union [an extra 28] despite the fact that it was a different government, it strains credibility that bots on FaceTime spouting ideologies that didn't resonate with a native population would turn an election ([think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_electoral_interventions). Relates to "Gaza (which we Kremlinologists know to be the Second Front of Ukraine)" - can you at least do more than appeal to your Kremlinologist priesthood authority and explain? It's an interesting, provocative statement that would be fun to hear more on. It's not clear whether you are saying that Russia and Israel are on the same side, or that Ukraine and Israel are on the same side. Relates to "the majority of the US voting public deciding that a black female was inferior to a white male" - I'm interpreting this as your privilege (which I fully support) to assert that racism and anti-feminism were the main causes of Kamala's defeat. If you have any polling data or numbers on how much these factors contributed, it would be more to chew on than an identitarian assertion. Relates to "voter intimidation, e.g., arson attacks on ballot boxes and bomb threats being called in to polling places" - crazy, I don't remember this at all @TaKinGDeePanal, here are some sources on the Bomb Threats: [think before following links] https://apnews.com/article/vote-ballot-drop-box-democracy-fire-f66c52f774955106fb9e7c8172825cff and [think before following links] https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-bomb-threats-to-polling-locations, none of which appeared to be credible so far. Of course, the first news source claims to debunk 2000 Mules, when in fact they are casting a very reasonable doubt on 2000 Mules, so it makes me distrust the source's ability to be fully logical. Given the use of Russian e-mails, combined with the fact that none were credible, I hypothesize that this was a false flag smear, but I am not stating a fact, merely a hypothesis.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this @brnbk. I bet you describe the default, but is it as it should be? To take an extreme example, is it my doctor’s job to write my living Will? I think Most people would agree that it is not a doctors role to make your choices for you. I see it more as a collaborative model where the doctor may have strong recommendations (e.g., prescriptions, but those recommendations don’t usurp your bodily autonomy. I bet doctor-patient relationships fall all over the spectrum as to how long a leash patients give their doctors. I know I think My doctor is there for ME, I am not there for my doctor. Interested to see how others view their doctors’ roles…

@BlindRawFucker1 curious to know if you’d have a reaction to the substance of @harrysmith25’s point if it were rewritten something to the effect of (apologies in advance @harrysmith25 if I mangle your meaning) “they’d all have to be exhibiting a complete inability to act in a consistent intelligible manner.” Any dispute of the point that was being made?

@tallslenderguy, this really resonated with me as a great background on the current political landscape. even though folks may perceive my comments as more likely to be right than left i'd argue that it seems to offer a relatively non-partisan explanation. it does seem to offer some demystification. thanks very much for sharing.

I think this is a very interesting point @tallslenderguy . However, I struggle to see the morality of putting these costs on the back of the taxpayer when they end up as massive corporate profits for big pharma especially. It does seem like a waste to slash and burn programs that generate value but I’d like to see that as leverage at least in negotiations on drug prices and other consumer goods that benefit from this tax redistribution.

I think you have a great point @tallslenderguy it’s always incredibly reductionistic to speak about giant groups in short sentences. I’m sure you’re right that many Democrats didn’t feel particularly well represented (this is not intended to be a partisan point true of Republicans and even my party the Libertarians). I regret structuring the headline I created without more laser focus. I was reacting to memories of conversations with a small sample of Democrats I spoke with many in my family who seemed almost programmed to regurgitate talking points. I don’t think only Democrats do this BTW think a large cohort of partisans of any stripe put loyalty to the group over loyalty to truth. Another dynamic I was pressing in particular was Jake Tapper’s behavior. He sets himself up as a trusted partner of truth but clearly (IMHO) obfuscated for years about Biden’s mental health and now when it’s obvious he was either lying or in deep denial…. ….&nb When someone does that to me I write them off as unreliable (much as many Republicans did to Nixon). If my initial post doesn’t inspire introspection among my Demo-bros I will only have my self and my bludgeon-style prose to blame.

My mom suffered from dementia and died last October. She progressed from forgetting how to make coffee to chasing the little real versions of NaNaNa that were 2 years old. Even though I became the pretend NaNaNa last year, I knew that mom loved me. You can still love someone and not lie about them. Democrats, were you really not able to tell? If you couldn’t, do you really think Jill Ashley Hunter and Camilla (and of course, closer to home, Kamala) were unable to tell? How do you think your ability to tell or not reflects the trustworthiness of 1) your judgement; 2) the judgement of your preferred media; and 3) the trust anyone would put in your party going forward? am I just being mean. or does credibility have a value outside of the partisan chorale (yes chorale with falsetto cows mooing in high octaves)? would you invite Jake Tapper to moo at your funeral? maybe it’s time for a Whig revival…

Hi @brnbk, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I saw her speak, and her concern was for the effect of the MRNA vaccine on her pregnancy and her fetus. She also was a strong advocate of medical freedom and believed that each of us owns our own health, and that doctors are advisors but do not get to take over our health choices. If your suspicion is correct, this would still put her at odds with the US Federal guidance of that era that natural immunity is inferior to the Pfizer or Moderna shot. Can you help explain how you are making sense of whether or not she already had COVID? I agree with you that it is important to read between the lines, but I am having a hard connecting the dots on your hypothesis. Thank you!

[think before following links] https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/top-fda-official-discloses-she-never-received-covid-19-vaccine

I think the Clinton Administration still ranks higher in terms of the number of Feds furloughed. As a former Fed, I was sickened by the number of people who express sympathy for me rather than sympathy for the taxpayers that overpay for a 25th annual date with the government. I can definitely appreciate that other countries find Trump’s style a bit oafish, but I’m surprised they haven’t realized that he’s talking a mean game until he sees that they’re coming to the table. Amen to that. If the President has determined that he can get results for less than Congress gave him, he’s behaving EXACTLY like a CEO of a Fortune 50 company. Huzzah! And love the chart!

Hi NWUSHorny, just checking to see whether you are going to affirm your position that MAGA people of all stripes “always” believe they are the real victims…? Very respectfully this comes across as hyperbole. Perhaps you were triggered to caricature a class of people? peace, NaNaNa

Not making fun @harrysmith25, just enjoying.

Hi @SDCumPup, It’s been over two weeks since you wrote your smack. Although there’s an off chance that you’re still polishing your response, I’m going to conclude that you really weren’t mounting a substantial argument, you were just expressing a dislike and maybe listening to your gut more than your scientific savvy. I ‘m a big fan of people who listen to their gut. I’m also a big fan of scientific savvy. It’s a really good idea to know oneself and the difference between gut and savvy before one picks up the pen.

[think before following links] https://daily.jstor.org/the-myth-of-the-papal-toilet-chair/

Great point 🙂