Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
38
-
37
-
35
-
31
-
29
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
"You're going back in time!" hahahaha "That was two, three years ago, what about now?!" hahahahaha "Now"? Idk, the Ukraine call happened, hell, a LONG TIME AGO, like, a couple weeks, eh?! That's not "now", is it?! Sometimes I imagine reporters spend for time and effort on JUSTIFICATIONS for their questions than they do on the questions, themselves...Too bad...
18
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That IS the most amazing part of it all: the media, who would, normally, be ALL OVER A JUICY STORY LIKE THIS, pursuing the scandal value of it as far as possible, is "in the tank" for the left! Usually, money is corporate motive, but they already got all the money, OR, suddenly they don't care about profitability...or there's another source of profit that we don't know about! There's less than a handful of possibilities, and NONE of them bode well for our country's prosperity. Further, there doesn't seem to be a way to address this curious media bias, detached as it is from profit interests...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They become corrupt because they can! Redaction is BS. Oversight is ineffective in an environment of secrecy. Not obvious? The oversight group must have unfettered access to the object of its oversight function. Not obvious? Take a basic logic course. The question is why has congress allowed this bogus oversight operation??! I think they've been persuaded by the object of their oversight that the secrecy of some things is too risky to compromise by exposure to "outsiders", that such exposure would make it impossible for the secret group to function secretly.
I'm getting really tired of all these secrets, and all the time and expense required to maintain them. The only purpose they serve is to secure some kind of special (meaning, undeserved) advantage, usually military/security, but nearly as often financial/trade. Militarily, the advantage could be used to induce fear in...everyone, not just adversaries--a defensive use, then. Even so, military advantage expresses in vistas of destruction, mayhem, and control, and is considered in terms of USAGE. IOW, everybody is always planning to wage war. This is a kind of toxic malice that pervades the very atmosphere. And it's not necessary anymore. Basic prosperity is now possible for all countries without waging war. Everyone's prosperity benefits everyone else because of the so much greater interconnectedness of everyone in the modern era. 70-year old people are thinking with essentially 100-year old minds, as far as the quality of ideas they consider valid indicates. They just can't realize that their ideas and way of thinking are outdated, no longer applicable to this vastly different world. So, in positions of power, such people MUST be, simply, dangerous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...difficult to know what fruit it might bear..."? In engineering, you run into the notion of "error stacking"; and, internal to the discipline, it's a big deal. To illustrate: what happens when you multiply to numbers, each having different error values? The measured width of a box is 12 in, ±0.1 in, and the length, 5 in, ±0.1 in; so the area of the box, A = W x L, properly includes the multiplied errors...they "stack" up in the resultant. In this quoted phrase, we have factors with huge in-built error, which multiply as the sentence is assembled. "Difficult" compounded with "might" produces a woefully vague semantic value--in a word, "FLUFF"...
But, of course, the language is glossed over as if it makes sense...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The disease doesn't "return"! It's everywhere, all the time. What needs to "return" is everybody's immunity. Fake vaccine immunity is unnecessary, since the disease itself is only marginally lethal. A vaccine would be useful to compromised individuals, like old and sick people. You have to remember how vaccines work: the vaccine delivers a greatly weakened version of the virus, along with "adjutants" that rev up the immune RESPONSE, to stimulate the body to create antibodies. A slight illness might result, but nothing like what would occur in a full-fledged infection--or, so the story goes. However, the vaccine-induced "immunity" pales in comparison to the naturally-accrued immunity, lasting a matter of years before requiring a "booster"; whereas, natural immunity is usually considered to be for a lifetime. It's easy to see that vaccine immunity has LIMITED UTILITY...it shouldn't be cast as "world savior"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's so funny: the woman in yellow steps all over the black guy's point in her rush to "possess" the talking stick, and then says NOTHING having to do with the black guy's point! This is why I object to female analysts in general: they don't engage points straight on, like men, who see a made point on the table, in the air, as shameful to ignore; women seem to lack that confidence to engage honestly, and, instead, come at you sideways, as it were. It's like they think, "Hey, I heard what you said; but now it's MY TURN to talk (act like an authority), and I'm better off not even acknowledging what the person before me said, especially since I wasn't really listening anyway <tee-hee-hee>." Men can adopt a balanced perspective; I've NEVER seen a woman do that well--there's always...extra attitude, inflection (i.e. propaganda) to try to sneak in a secret slant while trying to appear balanced...bless their hearts, each and every one!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the industrial age, cities were viable as concentrations of labor. As the industrial has given way to the digital/information age, those concentrations of labor have languished. Labor, being predominantly democrat, in addressing this change, has sought relief, politically. Getting it, piecemeal, in past decades, laborers were placated, but not relieved of their stark prospects. Their disconnect from economic viability became institutionalized as a welfare entitlement mentality, which induces victimhood and promotes arrogance. Arrogant victims are invariably intent on malice...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, I believe Russia. I mean, WHY interfere in another country's elections?! Think about it. The phrase, "unintended consequences" looms hugely over such intentions! The high profile irrational fear is that country A's head will be a "Kremlin puppet". How does this work, exactly? Sweetheart deals? No...An outright takeover of country A's effective government seems the greatest fear. But, wait, why would county B want to do all the work of ruling a second country. I doubt country A's head would be allowed to do much out of the ordinary. Does anyone really image any head of state ordering all military to stand down and surrender to Russian forces?! All these "fears" seem rather hysterical to me. Then to think you, as country B, are competent to choose a direction of influence--if you choose wrong, maybe nothing, maybe it backfires, maybe it backfires spectacularly--is a fit depiction of the hubris the gods hate so much. Saying, "unintended consequences be damned!" will get you jinxed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The word you're looking for, Sarah, is "stupid". Stupid people get the wrong impression of themselves when you don't tell them they're stupid: they think they're smart, so they start acting inappropriately confidently. You see, they are SURE you don't have a right to exist; and they're so smart they must be right--or so they imagine. Their purpose is to eliminate you from their calculations, one way, or another, as a fly in their utopian ointment. Legal technologies offer them the mechanism they need, since they lack physical prowess, both individually and collectively. In the end they will rankle at getting their hands dirty and, therefore, fail for lack of commitment (i.e. "no, I ain't doin' that if it's gonna get my hands dirty").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I seem to remember an official determination, months ago, that no election vote counts were affected by the supposed Russian hacking; now it seems this has been forgotten. Russian "interference" (i.e. advertisements) is BS, not because it doesn't happen, but because it's always happened and everyone does it, even the US. The idea that if Russians talk to American voters, the voters are rendered incapable of the same information vetting they're used to exercising routinely. Absurd! And offensive: it paints Americans as idiots. I'm going to speak now, for all Americans: "Get off your high horse and give us the raw information; we will take care of interpreting it and deciding on its value!" {voice of America off} We've been vetting "fake news" all our lives! Now you think you will unilaterally "protect" us from it. We've never had any need for such "protection"; you're selling it to us to artificially bolster the value of your product, the true fake news--the propaganda state, which has been steadily losing adherents since the advent of alternative internet new sources. So they gin up this Russian thing to convince everyone it's an issue, this fake news. Like, we should only get our news from approved sources; and other sources should be eliminated. I don't like the idea. Monopoly of information is too precious to simply let slip away, without a fight, they think. And they're right. It is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1