General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

FRONTLINE PBS | Official
comments

Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "FRONTLINE PBS | Official" channel.

@matthew-jy5jp It's hilarious that you can't back up your junior high school level smack talk with anything but an emoticon.
17
@Matt-cr4vv Holy cow. How does your rant even make sense in reality? Comey should have been fired by Obama or by Trump on day one. There's no question about it.
9
Rosenstein knew he was right when he wrote it. He didn't know just how massive the Social Justice rebellion would be. Neither did I. The stupidity revealed since then still takes my breath away.
6
Frontline has been going downhill, fast, since September 11, 2001. All of PBS is now run entirely by PC Critical Theorists. They're totally incorrigible and totally convinced that they are Master Expositors of all humanity.
6
Truth never needs to be described as such unless there is some uncertainty about it. Why so confident about something you're so uncertain about?
5
This video is full of nothing but agitation propaganda from triggered fools. She's scared of just about everything. OK. How does that make her an expert on anything? She's just another pied piper of "journalism".
5
@christinaleuchtmann2085 Care to rephrase?
4
@kanikileprohi8924 First rule is learning to correctly parse good from evil on an objective spectrum. That means you have to know how things are supposed to work nominally. In a liberal Republic it means you get to vote on representatives and sometimes they keep certain promises but they are evil of they promise to deliver something to you that you didn't rightly earn. US politicians are not to deprive others of "natural" rights as listed in the US Constitution. And the corollary to that is you have to know which elected leaders of "special Constitutional prerogatives" while in office. You have to know which ones are lying to you when they make magical promises. PBS sides with magical materialism, AKA Critical Theory Marxism. Because it works for them. They are an unhinged "will to power" cult. Just like the DNC.
4
@David_Lloyd-Jones You people are crazy.
3
Trump is not an autocrat. You people are crazy. And you never denounce the actual autocrats, like FDR.
3
@somnathbanerjee2057 AI has no will to replace humans. That's because AI has no will. Full stop. It has no selfish interests. It has programs and rules that humans set for it.
3
@patrickharrison4421 Bolton tried to kill you. Sure. Because of Capitalism and Patriarchy. Right?
3
@aaronm8143 Move to Texas and start your own business.
3
@jackandhisgoose9435 They're good but it's a cult's "objectivity". They do their best the way that they understand "two sides" theory. They still make lots of mistakes but seem to "capture the spirit" of the false choices.
3
@StellarFella Arbitrary autocrats like FDR?
3
@David_Lloyd-Jones Your delusional analogies draw from historical facts. Idiot. You are insane. You can't demonstrate in any way at all that you can distinguish between fact and delusion. You defended your delusions as analysis. Lol. That's not going to do it.
2
@David_Lloyd-Jones More idiocy. You've got an endless supply, apparently.
2
@David_Lloyd-Jones And you still can't tell fact from fiction nor respond intelligently about actual controversies being discussed. Your rhetoric is inherently delusional and regressive. Trump never threatened to pack SCOTUS but an autocrat like FDR would and did. See, that's how serious people support their verdicts and analogies. You rant from your triggered mind and project your own parasitic value system on to targets identified by your cult.
2
@tjk9263 That's weird because her allies are always hyping "population bomb" control. They're not against "Climate Change." They're against anyone that opposes their paranoid cult.
2
It's just a Turing machine being played with by a bunch of demagogues. Artificial intelligence would be better described as imitation intelligence. The goal is to imitate, not replace humans in any meaningful sense. The idea was to use the Turing decryption machines to then issue British and US contrived orders down the command chain after disrupting the original instructions in a way that the recipients would believe that whatever sense of character the recipients "read between the lines" that the imitation instructions would be believable. Conceptually, it's the same as having someone like Amazon or Apple answering your questions but trying to achieve a standard not just that you knowingly accept this as a replacement but that you actually believe it comes from an authorized human source. All of this other hyperbole just converses and scares people. The villains are not the machines. The villains are the ones deceiving you about the machines, the threat, and what should be done about this alleged threat. The threat is that "the demos" don't know who is manipulating them. And "algorithms" give organizations "plausible deniability" when they're programmed to distract you from obvious conflicts of interests. "No, it's Science. It was a mistake. We never could have known our 'AI' would help the CCP."
2
@patrickharrison4421 The whole reason for the US Constitution's divided government (vertically and horizontally) paradigm is that we're not supposed to blindly trust anyone with government power. We're supposed to judge their actions carefully, as we would expect to be judged. Our schools teach radically different theories, I'm afraid.
2
@patrickharrison4421 Stay healthy and look after your immune system and cardio-pulmonary health. The worst you'll have to fear from that particular SARS virus is headaches and a mild fever. The same advice applies to living through cancer treatments. Indoor or outdoor cycling and a healthy diet will take care of most of what you need.
2
@BTsMusicChannel The key to critical thinking is understanding and organizing claims and biases, not pretending that bias doesn't exist or that it's all just competing versions of "community truth." Even your use of of the term "political" shows an unconscious worldview bias.
2
@HistroryOnics OMG. Don't be absurd. "History" is a collection of claims about the past. That is the only categorical thing that anyone can say about it. There's nothing immutable about any claims.
2
@BTsMusicChannel Critics citing selfish interests is not ipso facto evidence of corruption or distortion. You're relying on leftwing "social" pseudo-sciences that "know" that humans can't even be aware of their own selfish interests and therefore they can't develop balanced, objective reportage. Everyone but them, apparently, suffer from this flaw. "Woke" professors and journalists are the Masters of Objectivity, we're to assume, since they "know" how flawed everyone else is.
2
@HistroryOnics Some fact claims are verifiable. The problem is the conflation of inference and verifiable evidence. Most idiots today rattle on only about their pet inferences as "facts" because they can correctly cite, for example, Trump's swearing in date and therefore all of their other claims must be reliable. LOL. The reader is supposed to cull salient facts. That's what we used to teach students before "socialized" schools started organizing "communities" and protecting "victims of Patriarchy" and all of that abject BS.
2
@BTsMusicChannel There's no infinite pool. What's apparently infinite is the imagination of nihilistic, dogmatic critics. If you want to study "A history of A" you put together a thesis (or at least a coherent framework to organize your claims) and give examples with some verifiable, salient facts. And then people comment on it. If the world is populated with enough intelligent critical thinkers they work together to improve the articles and the process of creating them. OTOH, now that schools around the world assume the worst of their students they're instead fed first rate bullshit and then given little awards for trivial accomplishments and told to get a job working for Facebook or Google. In the end they sit around doing nothing but reading "social media" and trying to figure out who is the best political messiah to extort the taxpayers in to paying for their things and giving them cash entitlements for the rest of their lives.
2
@SG-hf8pj You're not even capable of engaging in an information-seeking conversation. "Name calling" has nothing to do with any of it. I criticized "socialized education" doctrines and results. You came along to pretend that your views, that you can't even articulate clearly, are superior, and you sort of attempted to use your cult's pedantic memes to scare off anyone from actually considering my criticisms. You did nothing to attempt to flesh them out or even try to figure out what validity you might find in them. In the process, you exemplified everything that I am pointing out in terms of results. You don't even know how to use a fucking dictionary and instead try to diminish my critiques by using the "buzzwords" term (as a buzz word!) to signal to your groupthink cult to ignore my critiques. You are a perfect exemplar to support my argument. You're totally unaware that in a debate I could fully defend the "Progressive" worldview, relying on Darwinism and related pseudosciences to show (without proper testing) that "disparity" is innate to natural humans and that the closest thing to "social justice" that humanity can achieve is when Enlightened Elites (AKA "democratic Brain Trusts" in the time of FDR) are ruling every polity. WTF would I care about your inane FUD memes when you're clearly a victim of everything that I've mentioned? You know it. All of the readers know it. They simply fear that there are no better choices because they fear that disparity in cognitive abilities is innate. To admit that their theories have not been properly tested is to throw away their entire worldview and submit to doctrines that they hate. IOW, emotional responses with "community truth" justifications. A secular cult that claims "science" without demonstrating any scientific nous. You and your entire cult demonstrates a rejection of progressive scientific knowledge while claiming to be masters. Just as Bruce Jenner "identifies as" female when everyone knows that this is simply an agreed upon lie.
2
@StellarFella You Communists are still pissed off at Putin for going against your Arc of History. LOL.
2
Target, not product. Target.
2
@bsymissy No. The Civil War never ended. Some slavers turned to the KKK and States' rights while others, sometimes the same people but without their robes on, invented what they call Progressivism, because that put them in charge of the entire legal system. Over time, "globalist" elitists joined in common cause with US elitists. That's what we now call "the left" (which was originally Jacobinism). It is led mainly by elitist "community organizer" lawyers.
2
@Francis Hubert Don't conflate AI with "robots." "The problem is, humans doing jobs nowadays usually don't have a stake in the company. " Why is that? And whatever happened to Antitrust law?
2
@ghg789987 Right. Except that our schools make it seem like the opposite is happening. And it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
2
@StellarFella Do you actually know what Artificial Intelligence actually means and its relationship to "compromising material" in the "statecraft" game?
2
@TPerm-hj4sf Better to let the Chinese Communists "peacefully" sweep away every other nation's sovereignty.
2
@matthewlvh Explain the alleged "Republican Party outright lying."
2
@johnhalverson1133 LOL. Dude. Learn your own lexicon.
2
@tiaan7032 You're supposed to be able to cull fact claims from spin. Changing from channel to channel should make that clear. It's those that live in rigidly protected cultural bubbles that get confused by any contrary views.
2
@Third_eyee They teach Critical Theory and claim it is Scientific Critical Thinking.
2
The "pandemic" strategy is to allow State governors to deal with domestic management while Trump marshals development of the vaccine and any emerging "best practices" as they evolve. Why do you hate science?
2
@katomiler843 Listen, idiot, learn what scare quotes are. According to pretty much every theory on human philosophy, everyone instinctively regards their own views as "rational." The problem today is that there's an academic cult (the same one that dominates the unions and interferes with "Our Democracy" as "Resistance") that validates certain kinds of circular logic as "rational" AKA "Realism." By my (trigger warning! scare quotes ahead!!!) "typing" I alluded to this contradiction where many people study International Relations and "Realpolitik" as "Realism" and then conflate that with "studies" of individuals. Like "stereotyping" Trump as "authoritarian." It's insane. It's institutionalized insanity. Bolton is not a doctrinaire Progressive. But he's clearly triggered by the idiotic "Social Darwinism" theories.
2
@David_Lloyd-Jones Inaccurate? What you wrote is straight up insane. You can't properly parse fact from fiction. You're completely deluded and beyond correction at this time. You are unskilled and unaware.
1
@David_Lloyd-Jones Moron, I already answered your questions. You obviously can't read or write properly.
1
@brentjamesonparker What an idiotic, illogical question. Pretty ironic. Too bad you can't rectify your own fallacious thinking before chiming in.
1
@brentjamesonparker Let me explain something to you. People that go around like you making "labeling" arguments, that never come up with any kind of logical explanation to support the label "accusation" are just about as illogical as it gets. It almost doesn't even matter what you think "straw man" means. It's pretty obvious that you don't know what "straw man fallacy" means. A straw man, logically, is a trope or a model (analytical paradigm) or whatever. You seem to think that with your silly 5 word accusation that you've said something meaningful. What you've telegraphed is that you have no hope of following the conversations without first looking at your own "uncertainty theories" - or more bluntly - your own areas of ignorance. You don't even realize that by your own behavior you're providing an example of many of the problems I've complained about right here. You're triggered by your cult to defend perceived "community interests" (that's a rough translation from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks). That's the only thing anyone can conclude by your contribution here. Another way of putting it is that you're "virtue signaling" to likeminded people. If you want to cry out illogically "straw man something something" over and over again, carry on. That's what you and your cult like to do when you're not carrying bad "social justice" signage to the riots and throwing Molotov cocktails. Identifying you as affected by a cult is not a fallacious "straw man" argument. I'm pointing out the implications of your inane rhetoric. You're perfectly free to show contradictory evidence but choose not to. How about that.
1
@brentjamesonparker Genius.
1
Really Doe You poor deluded thing.
1
@OccultDemonCassette Another delusional lunatic rant. SNAFU
1
Really Doe Moron, I doubt that you can read or reason properly but for the sake of those that can, I already wrote that FDR fits more than any other US President based on historical facts. I'm not the one with a fetish of arguing by labeling. The New Deal and his treatment of Congress, SCOTUS, and his willingness to run for 4 terms, unlike any other US President in history, demonstrates that FDR saw himself as a kind of unique political messiah that was totally closed minded about any opposition to his "New Deal" socialism and approach to foreign policy. You morons have no idea what he was about. Apparently you don't even know what "autocrat" actually means. Did you study any history at all? Do you not ever consider the relevant facts pertaining to your kooky rants? Did it ever occur to you that FDR's relationship with Stalin was more valued than his relationship with the British because FDR was a crazed neo-Marxist Progressive that thought the Communists and their command economy ideas (as in New Deal) were the way of the future for all of the world? Serious scholars that are not afraid to look at history from an unbiased frame can see that FDR had the same beliefs as the Marxists other than his own Christian beliefs and that the USA was regarded as "exceptional" in that it would not need to go through a bloody revolution to achieve the Marxist prophecies for "progress" and so forth. When neo-Marxists denounce "Communism" they're only denouncing their rivals and/or the need for revolution. If you believe in Marx's historical materialism and "progress" you also believe in Communism. You just don't know what he labels mean. As far as Trump as "autocrat" this is literally propagated by neo-Marxist academic lunatics that "make the case" by using "signaling" and "stereo typing" profiling techniques. At best these critiques belong in a conversation about perceptions and leadership styles and how propagation by enemies can spin. But soon you see that they are the ones that regard themselves as "victims" and therefore "enemies" of an elected President. Not just that they're triggered by his speech but that they can't recognize their own childish reactions. As if they really think they can connect him with "autocrats." They obviously don't even understand the meaning behind his rhetoric. What it shows is that the academic class of paid pontificators can make careers out of teaching "criticism" to students and nobody will really see just what a crazed cult they've created over time. John Bolton's fear of Trump is based on his view of "democracy." He's a very good attorney. He's done a good job playing his assigned roles in the past. Kooks don't understand how that works. With Trump, Bolton didn't actually disagree with Trump's policies. He was triggered by his manners that Bolton instinctively profiled like a Progressive kook. Because although he's not a doctrinaire Progressive, he spends so much time with them that some of the Progressive cultural "community sense" has affected his thinking. He fears Trump because he's afraid that, generally speaking, Progressives are right about "the demos" that they regard as idiots. That they are "triggered" and that "capitalists" like Trump only care about profit. It doesn't mean Bolton is afraid of these policy changes. Bolton knows that Communists are far more dangerous. What's amazing to me is that Bolton thinks Trump is in another class from, say, the Bush family. And he is but only in a very superficial sense. The Bush family has raised their children as "conservative Progressives" in that they believe in the Progressive worldview but play a kind of Randian Libertarian role as "conservers of patriotism and stuff" in the US. Progressives think that you're an idiot. Unlike me, they don't blame their own academic doctrines and "public education" establishment. They blame Darwinism. They don't expect students to be able to catch up once they fall behind (or worse, when they show up as "low IQ" from the start). They expect a wide diversity in results from K-12 and try to create "egalitarian learning" so that the students don't notice this wide disparity (that they are partially responsible for). Apparently you've never read and contemplated Orwell's Animal Farm.
1
Really Doe
1
Really Doe "You're calling people idiots just because they recognize just how deep and far your head is inserted up your rectum." LOL. That's called "question begging fallacy." Look it up. If I offer sound insight that can be used to improve the conversation and even improve the thinking of "adversaries" then that is synergistic discourse. You don't recognize it because he totally lack any confidence in learning anything at all. You have no confidence in your own declarations. If you had any confidence at all in your rants the only effect "name calling" would have on you would be you'd slow down to explain yourself better. You don't think that you can improve at all so you panic and follow all of the other indoctrinated kooks and their hiveminds. You were led to believe that certain types of people can always sort of outperform and that you can't learn from them. You must cling to "social justice" tactics and throw out inane smears in "solidarity" with the other Victicrat kooks. My rhetorical "abuse" actually shows my confidence in your ability to do better. In virtually everyone's ability to learn from conversations of all kinds. Academic trigger theory is abject bullshit. That's what's making you feel this way. None of you put any serious thought in to questioning your own biases. Because you're afraid to. Your minds were closed by your experiences at school. Read the Dunning Kruger studies. These are "psychologists" doing "studies" to show "disparity" in a non-offensive way but based on 2 assumptions: The biggest factor in human disparity is caused by material disparity, including inheritance (DNA and so forth) and that the public school academic doctrines that they went through can't be at fault either.
1
Really Doe "With your Fox News talking points, their signature terminology and repetitive insane rambling of a cult member. " Are you capable at all of running "quality assurance" on your own rants and the actually implications? Fox News signature terminology? LOL. Insane ramblings from me. In theory, sure. The problem that you have is that you can't actually support your claims with any kind of evidence at all. You actually allude only to the Jacobin-Marxist-Progressive cult's form of idiotic theories. Including the theory that you're not able to put together a coherent rebuttal because you're "oppressed" by "capitalism" and "trigger speech" that is part of the "evolution" of the "oppressor" class. You're triggered to throw out these inane and totally ineffective accusations in part because they represent fears about yourself and your own thinking. Your own inadequacies and your fear that you can't grow beyond. That's also why you're to triggered by "Fox News" and Trump. You're triggered by "intersectionalism" or as I call it, Always Blame Capitalism even if you don't know theories. You're afraid that you can't compete and you're afraid that you need a certain political party to defend everything that you depend on materially and psychologically. It's sad. I, on the other hand, am not an "oppressor." My "harsh" (compared to what you're used to in our schools) rhetoric could have a positive effect on you if you'd overcome your fears and cultivated "Resistance" responses. But that's on you and it doesn't matter if you start now or at any time in the future. These are your choices that all individuals must make as the opportunities arise. You have not done much to leverage opportunities granted to you. Maybe give that some thought.
1
Really Doe "You can tone down your unnecessarily long and wordy "explanations" of irrational and your attempts at eloquent composition are as sad as your weak demagoguery." Perhaps more edits are needed? Also, characterizing my rhetoric as "demagoguery" shows that you don't know what the term actually means nor its implications about the audience. Claiming that X is irrational should logically be associated with (allegedly) better examples of what your standards are for "rational." No? Because as it stands you're just throwing out a lot of inane rhetorical chaff in the exact manner I described. You're nominally "objecting" but supporting through example exactly what I have written.
1
Really Doe Why do you bother to write anything at all when all you do is demonstrate poor reading and synthesis skills? You're just crying out as "victim" of, what, exactly?
1
Really Doe Of course I can. Are you capable of communicating on a level that any high school graduate ought to be capable of?
1
Really Doe You don't even understand your own lexicon.
1
The problem is the objective started over one thing and then morphed in to delusional objectives. Even the supporters of the war could not agree on an end goal or strategy to achieve any clear thing but "progress". They only agreed that they didn't want to "cut and run." That's it. The nation building mission was pure delusion as if occupying Japan and Afghanistan are going to lead more or less the same result. And we didn't even carry out the same kind of programs. The whole thing is insane. You can't build consensus with American Progressives. Their entire worldview is based on smug Utopian arrogance. It's incredibly sad. And if you don't think Progressivism dominates the entire DNC and much (most?) of the Republican Party you could not be more wrong. Progressivism is a cult that dominates all of DC and our academies. It will destroy the free world. It very nearly has already.
1
@michelledavis4817 The "government" that bombed Cambodia is the same one that funded Stalin's expansion in to Europe under the "Arsenal of Democracy". It's actually the same statist cult that put together The New Deal "economic" and foreign policy paradigm. It's the one driving everyone but the CCP crazy.
1
@serenityb5816 LOL. You guys have no idea what kind of reputation Jack Smith has. He doesn't even believe in Constitutional rule of law. He believes in some kind of mysterious "international rule of law" that is the stuff of mere imagination. International law is the law of treaties. Treaties are only ever enforced on a bilateral basis and therefore the enforcement can not ever be uniform around the globe. At best you hope that sailors follow "International law of the sea" but there's no actual court to appeal to that any nation is bound to listen to unless another sovereign is willing to impose sanctions based on its own policies, not "the law".
1
It was used to decrypt Nazi military command signals.
1
@rhocassiopeiae He's just another idiot.
1
@cocofluff That's not called thinking. That's reacting.
1
Wrong. Anyone with normal IQ can understand all of human knowledge, given enough time. And IQ is not an objective measurement, by the way. It's to gauge, subjectively, where students fit in to "socialized" schools and later started to be used in courts for mitigation defense strategies and then sometimes unofficially for "expert witness" qualifications. What a freaking joke.
1
The other nonsense already arrived starting with fraudulent Impeachments and fake emergencies to pull all of this garbage that keeps getting worse by the day.
1
@evanmcdonnal Explain in "libspeak" what "verbal intelligence" means.
1
Here's one of the blatant lies still playing in this video. The "loyalty" claim according to Comey is easily reconciled by the following facts: Officers swear loyalty to the Constitution. Comey acted against Trump based on "national security intelligence gathering" paradigms approved by Obama. To the extent that Trump understood this, and he did, Trump also knew that these EOs automatically expired when a new President is sworn in for the simple reason that the sworn President is the head of the Federal Executive Branch and Comey's only choice was to shift his "Constitutional loyalty" to Trump's orders replacing whatever spoken or unspoken permission he got from Obama. And actually, Comey DID carry on investigating Trump after Trump was sworn in. Comey violated his oath to the US Constitution. He chose loyalty over his own ends, justified supposedly by...what? He had no right to run an investigation on President Trump. Period. And even if he had "ironclad" evidence he could at most follow "whistleblower" law and or resign. He kept his job, kept operating in the chain of command while running an illegal "operation" (intelligence gathering?) on the Chief Executive Officer. Had there been any CCP involved in this scheme Comey could have been charged with Treason. And we don't know if the CCP was dovetailing its own intelligence gathering on Comey's illegal Keystone Kops routine. It's unbelievable that PBS is this partisan and spreading such ignorance. Even in its "premier investigative yada yada yada..."
1
@StellarFella LOL. Which dictator are you referring to? FDR died in 1945. The other Democratic Party Presidents are pikers compared to FDR. There is no single autocrat to replace FDR. He left behind a cult of bureaucrats and a part that only knows how to keep making everything in DC bigger.
1
@frankG335 The thing is that Comey is a law school graduate that doesn't even know how the Constitution actually operates.
1
@CarltonSmith45 I promise you that this is nothing more than "computer" systems and algorithms that have permission to write their own rules but within a known framework. It's like bragging that a customer service database "learns" as you add more customer info and then give it "permission" to modify it's own routines based on the growing data and the rules preprogrammed. Many software projects were started by massive teams and then taken over by people that can never meet the original authors. These secondary programmers start to believe the hype a bit or use the language that they think makes them look like "gurus" (it's hard to tell what they really think) and promote a "mystical" view about what is really behind these paradigmatic claims. The goal of "AI" in machine logic is to deceive. Where the deception starts and ends really depends on who explains it and how they understand it. It's still human programmed, non-sentient machinery. If "national defense" lingo, "signals intelligence" represents communications that are intercepted and if a replacement message is put in place with the aid of a computer program, that is "synthesizing" artificially the intelligence that you intercepted. It's not "artificial sentience." It's fraudulent intelligence that can "imitate" human communications from the same source that sent the original but with hopefully different outcomes. Having machines play chess is just gaming. Nothing more. It shows off the power of the machine, not sentience.
1
Jessica Robinson LOL. The messianic, expansionist power is Iran.
1
@patrickharrison4421 I'm sure there's more to the story. I'm glad you're alive and well. I don't trust anyone without evidence.
1
Alvino A So? That's a caveat doctrine, not "wisdom" or something like that. Claims are claims. That's it. If you want to build "knowledge" you have to learn how to vet and organize knowledge claims. It's a process. We can't just "choose to agree" that Napoleon never existed, as one example. We can comment on various things and that can affect "pop history" just as it affects popular "science" notions. Nonetheless, knowledge claims can be vetted over time and our understanding of what happened in the past becomes slightly clearer in the process. But few can even discern or control their own biases so it seems like a lost cause, I guess. I blame "socialized" schools. Our prediction models in "rocket science" and physics continue to get better but our ability predict the future of man gets worse. Nobody understands anything about human behavior. They all seem to want to be identified as "master expositor" rather than figuring out some truly rational prediction paradigms. Noam Chomsky is some kind of "social justice" guru and a total idiot. Most of the other "thought leaders" are even worse.
1
@SG-hf8pj What nihilistic idiocy are you spouting? Today's schools are "anti progressive" in that they teach nihilistic bullshit like you're spouting all framed on the assumption that "community truth" is the only "truth" that can exist. IOW, there's no such thing as objective "truth" other than what we all agree that we can observe, and what we infer from that observation is also subject to "community truth." That is utter bullshit. We don't teach critical thinking. We teach "critical theories" all premised on the assumption that "critical thinking" is "racist" in the sense that critical thinking leads to "unmanageable disparity" or "Social Darwinism." In order to have Progressive "managed Social Darwinism" the plebs must be taught all of the "critical theories" with "racist" ideas that lead to "unmanaged disparity." It's doctrinaire Progressivism minus critical thinking. IOW, it's inherently regressive and anti-scientific. I don't need to appeal to my history or training to support what I wrote. Since you seem to think that it does I'll mention that I have a background in US Constitutional law, history (studying the history of English common law and British monarchy), computer sciences, electronics, material and biological sciences and the nexuses such that I can advise "medical" enterprises in order to obtain credentials to sell products in the USA and around the world) and manage risks. I must liaise between all of the various "experts" across "world cultures" AND "expert" cultures. It doesn't take a genius to do that. It takes a proper fundamental education and careful progressive, relevant experience. Teaching about culture and critical thinking are not the same thing. Anyone can be taught critical thinking. Critical thinking should be the seed of all teaching doctrines in any "democratized" academy. It's not. European philosophers (with the help of crazed, idiotic lawyers and elected officials as allies) killed it in Western academies when they "socialized" the schools.
1
@SG-hf8pj You're a total idiot. Full stop. You don't have the cognitive skills nor the appropriate humility to even formulate relevant questions. Instead you fill in your own deluded worldview and imagine yourself as having superior understanding while at the same time knowing that you are just another ignorant victim of socialized schools. You aided my argument while attempting to dismiss it. How sad. You do this because you don't even imagine that you could have learned more with access to better schools and much better teachers. Buzzwords. My God. What a pathetic response.
1
@SG-hf8pj Moron, Formulate an intelligent question. Stop lying.
1
Alvino A That's not what fact means. The original assertion was unqualified. Categorical. You then try to support it with a "critique" of "people" knowing you can always find examples of flawed people and flawed claims that you will continue to imply is "proof" of your categorical assertions. Rather than saying "history is agreed upon lies" you should start off by saying that people can be idiots. That says nothing about 'history" except that "history" is a product of humanity.Quality varies wildly. But it's a fact that claims can be vetted and therefore most serious historians and their claims can be rated and the historical claims that survive vetting can rarely be described as "agreed upon lies" by anyone but hypocritical lying revisionists. It's just not that easy to lie while making "big history" claims. It's usually "POV history" like "A People's History" or whatever. And even they are not lying so much as promoting idiotic worldviews. Most of what you find in "the history section" of any US library is based on verifiable records but also known POV. Not lies at all. The fact is that people like Napoleon like to propagate partisan lies to "replace" inconvenient facts about themselves.
1
@StellarFella Is FDR a hero or a villain according to you and your cult?
1
@jamesrichardson3322 Not exactly. The elitist slavers pivoted to controlling DC Commanding Heights. You think they weren't aware of Marxist theories? Of course they were. They understood the need for "Soviets" to guide "labor." They're neo-Soviets trying to take power under "dictatorship of the proletariat" and some are loyal to DC Democrats as "vanguard party" while others are just waiting for End of History Communism when all the wealth is "shared fairly" whether by Pelosi, Biden, Xi, Kamala, they don't care. The whole "southern neoconfederacy" meme is stupid. Because there are a select few, I assume, that think they can just ignore the big picture and harken back to the way things were. That's not a dominant theme in any significant movement of today. You're seriously deluded if you think so. You listen to too many idiotic stories from academics that feed you false binaries of "good politics" and "bad politics". Most "Humanities" academics are morons. That's why they can't get work where they're held accountable for testable results.
1
@jamesrichardson3322 You're right that I've never met anyone quite like that.
1
@timburk9079 Did steel bladed shovels "replace jobs" or lead to more work? Or both? How about steam engines?
1
@16nowhereman When were humans not lazy?
1
POTUS doesn't have to explain himself to his advisors. Bolton got triggered. Just like so many other self-hating Progressives. Progressivism is premised on fear of "Social Darwinism." It's pretty amazing.
1
@twatts1523 100% correct. They're totally suspicious of everything the Democrat Party run nanny state tells them to "investigate". They get this nonsense directly from the parasitic statists that are spreading absurd agitation propaganda. DC has been pitiful since FDR and the Democratic Party in the US has been pitiful and I would even say evil from the moment of its inception.
1
@StellarFella Why all of the authoritative emotionalism? The most tyrannical Presidents are regarded as heroes to this day. Trump was one of the most liberal Presidents in the nation's history. You guys just don't know what the words mean and don't understand what the choices are. If you want to understand the Nazi imagery and what should scare you then you need to read Three New Deals. Political/economic systems are not understand merely by the Utopian promises that they make. Worse is to take their stupid agitation propaganda and go on screed about "tyrannical" bogey men. Napoleon fought for the French Jacobin regime. He rose to power is a leftist. He was the first tyrannical imperialist leftist, but not the last. The latest is Xi. The US only had 2 liberal Democratic Party Presidents. Truman and JFK. Everything you think you know about these topics is utter nonsense. Of course you think that stupid book is something to spread because of your feelings only.
1
@StellarFella I already listed a blatant lie in this video pertaining to the Comey "Personal loyalty to Trump" claim. Trump was the sworn President at that time and Comey was running an illegal operation against Trump based on permission from the previous President and was therefore violating his Constitutional oath. You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the comments sections.
1
@nancy8145 You'll find much more "misinformation" on PBS than you will on Fox News. But Frontline sets the serious mood and stuff. So truthy. LOL. Why do you people rely so much on straw men? It falls under "pound the table" when you have no facts to support your stories.
1
@RegWho Your claim is illogical. IOW, asinine. It is literally people reading from coordinated talking points to somehow defend Comey and others as "truth tellers" while smearing them for any association with "Republicanism" as the PBS (state funded media) is expected to do. You don't even know what the relevant facts are. You apparently think it's a "cool story" that supports what you're inculcated to also support with your own silly stories.
1
@TheDrewker My goodness. You kooks are apparently beyond hope. Don't you understand what Freudian projection is? It's a caveat doctrine. And you missed the lesson.
1
@TheDrewker What you wrote is insane.
1
@TheDrewker You're a Gaslit moron. That's why you're so "exasperated" in ways that you can't even begin to explain. You know that you're an ignoramus and yet you "identify" as (or with) Progressive elitist (ignoramuses).
1
@TheDrewker You're a deranged liar. Quote Bannon if you want to make some kind of rational point about what you claim he said or did. You effing Gaslit lunatic.
1
KALDOUT WNZ LOL. You don't understand his values. The first divide is between Progressive elitists and everyone else. Their (Progressive) base doesn't get it. Neither do you. This idiot in the video is a Progressive elitist. He "identifies as Conservative" or "Republican" or whatever but that doesn't even come close to conveying what he actually believes.
1
@Operafreak9 I'm sorry, but that's idiotic. Democrats created fascism before the Italian fascists coined the term. They emulated the KKK and the elitist "labor" movement. And they were reacting immediately to the threat of the Soviets (Progressive's allies) as Lenin pivoted from "Revolutionary Communism" to his NEP. The Fascists and Nazis interpreted this according to their own national interests. Just as "globalist" Lenin created post-revolutionary Marxist socialism with his NEP. The fascists simply denied the international workers' movement as "vanguard." Just like Lenin. A Republican that behaves like a fascist is called a RINO. Because they actually take their cues from fascist Democrats. Every thinking person can see that FDR only opposed "fascism" to help save "Communism." Good thing he finally died and Truman woke up soon enough to put the brakes on some of it.
1
@Operafreak9 Learn what fascism is.
1
Spirit of the founders gleaned from what, exactly? "Democracy" isn't a mystical thing. "Reasonable man" standards don't require Special Brain Trust elites to parse. It's just unbelievable how much "misinformation" we have now propagated and protected as "clarity" and "defense of Democratic Norms" and gibberish like that. The only thing Pence was tasked with was allowing Senators to present the case for investigating the election fraud accusations considering that "New Normal" (like drop boxes and using "COVID" to chase away lawful observers) was even more mysterious than explaining how "antiracists" can't be audited. Or some BS like that. And how is it that all of the pundits have ignored the most credible "liberals" of all like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley? How does ANY of this represent "democracy" in any sense? It's all circular logic and gibberish.
1
@christianschwalbach7561 You should move to China and face your accusers there. Then when you're convicted we'll all laugh at you.
1
@matthewlvh LOL. It's not a lie. Do you know what "socialism" means? He certainly does want to destroy "status quo hegemony" of "the patriarchy." His philosophies and government doctrines come from neo-Marxism. This is regarded by all sentient thinkers as "socialism" unless you're a full blown pseudo-scientific lunatic that thinks Critical Theory is "Settled Science." Care to try again? Calling people "liars" for offering intelligent criticism is, well, it's insanely ignorant.
1
@kristinaburnett-fo9sp The problem is that the criminals have been regularly threatening to "pack SCOTUS" and the Federal Judiciary is terrified of accepting a Civilian RICO petition. Maybe now that we have the Durham Special Counsel reports and House Committee reports all pertaining to the same criminal racketeers someone like Trump or his family members can sue for Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law. At the time Obama blessed the "intelligence" operation against candidate Trump, they all had plenty to hide. The Clintons' CGI treasonous grifting scheme is much worse than the Biden wing of the DC crime families. Biden's biggest mistake is letting his crackhead son take over as bag man for Beau.
1
@sunnyplace1759 Sorry to inform you that you're a dangerous ignoramus. Perhaps a move to China would help you understand things better in the USA or maybe you'll become a True Believer and live out the Woke Communist dream.
1
I agree that not all Democrats are evil. But once elected it's hard to understand why anyone would stay with the party once they see how it actually operates. Maybe in some States (certainly not in California) I can understand. All Democrats in DC are evil. Some are evil equivocators and the others are straight up, blatantly "liberal" evildoers who "liberate the demos" from phantasms of the party's creation. They still blame Republicans for losing their slaves and "labor struggles". And so called "Oligarchy" which means any powerful organization that goes against their zero-sum economics schemes (otherwise read "Critical Theory Marxism" for those that know the issues). Republicans are "monsters" and "Nazis" because these pathetic ignoramuses think that Capitalism is wage slavery and the "root cause" of all "Disparity" aka "Inequity". They dance around the specifics because Marx's labor value theory is a joke, disproven by all of history, and his "land reform" expectations only made sense in monarchies that did not allow equal access to own land. "Inheritance" was "wrong" because the material wealth had originally been granted by the monarch, in all of his examples. How does any of that apply to the USA? It doesn't. Even Stalin admitted that the US would never revolt as Marx had expected of "International Workers". But they still play with this BS in every academy from K-12 and every college they can coerce and take over. Critical Theory is not critical thinking. Changing labels and playing word game doesn't mean you're not relying on Marxist dogmas for the implied "value system" that underlies it all.
1
Nope. Those are stupid fables. However, the fables do create a lot of murderous idiots that propose to solve this phantom problem.
1
Haung Jo Exactly. Lots of Expert ignorance and hot gas.
1
@jakebredthauer5100 Your question is silly. There is no "the West" to answer you. The other fallacious thing about your question is that invading an adjacent UN member state is just about as provocative as it gets. Nobody provoked Russia unless you blame "Capitalism" for the entire Marxist cult and every dumb thing these people have done since Lenin first started murdering Russians.
1
@jakebredthauer5100 Conquer Russia. Lol.
1
@jakebredthauer5100 What gibberish. There are "biolabs" in many places. Weird you don't care about the labs in Wuhan. There is no single "movement" for "world government". Marxists prophesy that it will happen inevitably and pretty much every Marxist alive, including Putin and Xi, view themselves as "defending" their people against "Capitalism" and "The Elders of Zion" and so forth. I think that if you don't first understand history well enough and more explicitly where the historical movements came from you can't possibly understand "what people are saying" about Marxism, various flavors of economic and political globalism and all of the mendacious labels people use to try to describe their fears. I know who the biggest liars are and how they develop their lies. Maybe read up a bit about Antonio Gramsci and his "cultural hegemony" paradigm. Only then can you start over and carefully try to understand all of the dogmatic bullshit that gets tossed around all day and night.
1
They're both just euphemisms.
1
Raymond Babcock Orphanages?
1
@ttrestle His display name implies that his father fought in Vietnam.
1
@NxDoyle You offer no clues, actually. Perhaps you should work on self-improvement a bit before randomly abusing people that you might be able to learn from. What do you think "mainstream" means? Mainstream media, first of all, means widely distributed and widely accessible. PBS competes somewhat in those terms. But the commercial interests behind "MSM" are completely different. PBS propaganda is at least easier to to vet and while it has many of the same flaws as the other alphabet channels it does seem to be aware that it will lose support if it starts hiring idiots like Chris Matthews and that kind of fool. OTOH, they are slowly emulating the worst of what we hate about MSMS in many ways but the Gaslighting has to move at a much slower pace because of those differences that I mentioned. What PBS has in common with other "big media" is that it is an important target for control that has been identified by the "Commanding Heights" cults. Orwell's Animal Farm represented them as Pigs. Wherever you find Critical Race Theory and "Intersectionalism" taken seriously as legitimate filters to frame the Overton window you will find Orwell's Pigs behind it all, putting idiotic "grass roots" protesters and whatever talking heads they can control in Commanding Heights media loci. The actual footage on PBS is generally better, but the narration and framing is more dangerous because it's perceived as more credible. If our "socialized" schools had not destroyed the world's critical thinking traditions PBS would be fine. But PBS layered on top of the kind of graduates that are churned out by the legions is exactly how we arrived at where we are today. "Progressives" (and revolutionary Marxists) created all of these conflicts so that they could be the agents of change. IOW, their version of Broken Window theory is more in line with criminal racketeers. But it's "democratic" because they also corrupt the elections.
1
@glynndonahue1159 Not officially, but they probably employ at least as many Democrats as CNN. And their donors are pretty much all Orwellian Pigs.
1
@Saltine Kracker Globalism that does not disparage Westphalian sovereignty is good. Globalism from those that hate equal application of the law is evil. They want to rule you with your consent after Gaslighting you for your entire school and voting life. It's not really about "isolationism" versus "globalism." It's about elitist demagogues and their "community organizing" that make weak thinking people believe that they must follow the "Our Democracy" cult. If not, The Patriarchy will enslave them, they imply.
1
@54tristin Circular logic never gives up either. LOL. Perpetual Motion Machine!
1
@elik.webber7630 I don't think any of you know what "politicized" means in the context of the US Constitution and what is called separations of powers. The short version of the story is that under English common law and every legal system that carries those traditions there is something called "case precedent". this goes back as far as Henry II and we assume before that since he is merely the first known king to acknowledge and support it for ordinary locals to use. These case precedents are supposed to be a guide for the other judges and records are kept to make sure things are consistent. The British monarch was never subjected to this kind of system. The British have never had a written Constitution that is used to justify it's "political" power. Never. In any case, in the US we still use "case precedents" but these can always be appealed in various ways. Further, judges are sworn to defend the Constitution which means that they can't explicitly or implicitly violate it. If they simply follow "case precedent" traditions and imagine that they're merely "interpreting" the Constitution to "find" new implicit rights they are also violating the US Constitution by going beyond the judicial powers granted by it. They are to interpret the law as written, not find workarounds for favor ideas promoted by any political party or any other faction. That's what legislatures are for. There is only one major party that has made it its agenda to "reimagine" how this all works. They first appealed to "Social Darwinism" and "new understanding" as code to convey that ordinary "demos" aka ordinary petitioners can't possibly understand the law the way that the Social Darwinist cult can understand humanity. They now try to cite case precedents inappropriately (through language wars and other mendacity) to get what they want. They describe their constituents in a manner that should be familiar to those that have read Orwell's Animal Farm. But so many Social Justice warriors don't even realize how much they worship and depend on Orwell's Pigs. In US legal parlance, a judge will deem something a "political controversy" under "political question doctrine" (nobody seems to know what that means anymore) meaning that it's supposed to be answered by legislatures (and sometimes the Executive Branches), rather than the courts. And in many cases it's additionally deemed unconstitutional for the Federal government to interfere at all. A "political" judge is one that follows English common law traditions while ignoring established US jurisprudence that has been radically tainted since FDR's "struggle" for Social Justice or whatever you want to call it.
1
"Leftist" politics is all about destroying Separations of Powers. It was invented by the Jacobins before and during the French Revolution. And turned in to pseudosciences once Darwin, Marx and Freud's philosophies were integrated. Today it's usually propagated culturally through "media" and through Critical Theory academics. These "critiques" have their time and place. Defense attorneys must be familiar with these theories to defend their clients. Over the decades Critical Theory Marxists (under "explaining/solving disparity") have been trying to silence all disagreement so that only their constituents may shout their whinges to "the court of public opinion" in order to have their way in every hall of power. Exactly like the Jacobins did. There should be no leftist judges. Anyone that supports leftist politicians is an ignorant fool. "The right" is also a construct of the Jacobins. The original "opposition" was the Ancien Regime. We have no Ancien Regime in the USA. Political Identity Politics is all about filling out a cast of collectivist tropes to align with traditional Jacobin and Marxist "class war" tropes. Patriarchy yada yada, systemic racism here, banksters on Wall Street over there, it's a massive cast of Hollywood tropes all aligned with doctrinaire Marxism and Critical Theory "democratic" Marxism. Leftists get more and more obstinate and ignorant thanks to new thought leaders that make them even more confident that only they are "woke" enough to understand why things are the way that they are and yet they can't explain any of it properly. They can't even explain why they have to much faith in BS like the Green New Deal and endless wealth transfer schemes. For me what this all means is that the promises of "socialized education" have more than merely failed. It's become part of the "revolution" or "resistance" to "disparity" AKA "Capitalism". Nobody can admit today that they simply failed and doubled down year after year, generation after generation.
1
@DejaVuSept11 What bullshit. The Constitution is fine. The problem is Demon Rat Progressives could not tolerate it at any point in the party's history. They sought to change it through Amendments and "judicial activism". Anyone that has any idea on how to research the topic can see when this happened both before and after the Civil War. Oligarchs? LOL. You have no idea how "nefarious power" is destroying the Federal government. It's not "oligarchs". It's nihilistic Marxists that regard themselves as "Realists" working on Brain Trust Democracy. Just research SCOTUS during FDR's reign.
1
@anpdm1 Empire building? You must be joking.
1
@bliss4383 You're no Republican. You're a neo-Marxist kook. You conflate dogmatic criticism with critical thinking. And if you want to engage in psychobabble with any credibility you should first contemplate the implications of Freud's "projection" paradigm.
1
@rickkoleyahoocom Ding-a-ling, what is being "dismantled" is the New Deal Administrative state. That is NOT the best hope anyone has ever had outside of the Communists that wanted an elitist "democratic" oligarchy to deal with as they expanded their hegemony throughout the globe. Research "American exceptionalism" from the Communist POV. America, they supposed, had to come last if at all. FDR caused this mess. His "New Deal" completely destroyed the judicial branch as protector of enforceable natural rights. All "rights" claims are now fully politicized and must be constantly renegotiated. Since you don't care about history enough to understand the philosophies and legal/cultural crucible that created the American Revolution and the documents that frame our legal system you have no idea how FDR destroyed it.
1
@lisakain1517 These kooks are literally triggered by "Arch Capitalist" Trump. They're conditioned by the insane teachers to see "capitalism" as one tiny step from Nazism. They have no natural critical thinking skills. They were destroyed in grade school.
1
@rickkoleyahoocom Did you even read what I wrote?
1
@rickkoleyahoocom The term was coined out of concern that America would resist "socialist arc of history" due to its massive differences from imperialist Europe that was still ruled mostly by monarchs and their oligarchies. America is physically isolated and made a clean break from the British legal system developed under the monarchs while preserving the "democratic" aspects of it. A Marxist materialist would focus on the "cultural hegemony" of the "capitalist class" that reorganized under "status quo property conditions" to enslave the "working class" and this isolation from Europe, along with massive natural resources, created massive challenges for the Marxist parasites. Of course people here different things when they hear the term, but it was coined by Marxists. In any case, the idea was that America would be incredibly difficult to crack the way that say, Russia had. Not only that but we started to protect emerging "democracy" in Europe. So we had to be handled with my "savvy" (lying propaganda) so that our protections would be less effective and they could foment revolution around the world and also become more successful with "democratic socialism" in the more developed polities. Winning over FDR was their biggest coup of all time, without doubt.
1
@rickkoleyahoocom It's not being dismantled. The coup occurred decades ago. They destroyed the courts and now protect Administrative state powers that are practically impossible for voters to keep tabs on in time for elections. And the Administrative state is the unofficial tool for culling political candidates. That's been happening, again, since FDR. How do you think we ended up with Romney as "Republican candidate" for President? And how about McCain? They're kooky "conservative" Progressives. The same goes for both Bushes and everyone but Reagan. Even Trump is a recovering Progressive. At this stage it's all we can hope for because we need to rebuild the judicial branch and the schools. The only thing being "dismantled" in America is the industrial base. But that's a side effect of the deals the elitist idiots make. That can snap back quickly. The human resources and materials are still there. It's just that the "heroes of the workers" have screwed the workers, big time. They took power under "emergency" conditions and then after the Cold War wanted to "cash in the peace dividend" by pretending that China would hold elections and stiff if only we just help them get rich? They're insane idiots. They're screwing US workers and holding the courts hostage. It's relatively easy to undo if leftwing idiots would wake up from their ridiculous "woke" cult and "Green New Deal" nonsense.
1
@rickkoleyahoocom Identity Politics is indeed old. It's a newer skin for Marxist "class war" claims. They organize it under "victims of disparity" and by that they mean "Capitalism." Sometimes they allude to "Patriarchy." So it's new only in how it is propagated. It was created, actually, as part of the effort to foment the "international workers revolution" with "allies." Also, Darwin, Freud and so forth are the ones that suggested people "evolve" through families, clans and tribal alliances and rivalries. Capitalists would be the "top domain predators." Marxists try to use pseudo-scientific concepts to propagate their worldview as "social sciences" or "scientific socialism." Identity Politics basically implies that your alliances are discernible mostly by the group that you "identify" with but this is layered on the elitist view that only they know how to properly label everyone else. Hence, Trump is "dictator" identity or "Nazi" and so forth. They played Identity Politics with the Nazis as well conflating them with "right wing" so that they could smear everyone in America that disagreed with Progressives as "Nazis" or of the same ilk or "genetic family."
1
List the people in this video indicted for Treason. It should not take you long at all. And the only "crimes" are accusations based on "High Crimes" definition, which is simply something that scandalizes enough Congress members to Impeach someone. The irony here is that Jack Smith is using legislation designed to combat what we now call terrorism and criminal bigotry called "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law". This is the Federal crime that Hillary Clinton, James Comey, John Brennan, and massive lists of others committed against Trump the minute they ran an "intelligence operation" on the sworn President of the United States. But his "deprivation" theory is that "rights" of the voters were deprived by Trump pressing for forensic audits of all of these whacky "covid special" elections.
1
@StellarFella People educated by Marxist tyrants end up preferring Leninists and Stalinists for rulers. How about that.
1
@katomiler843 That has nothing to do with any controversy. I don't claim that he's misrepresenting anything that was said. I am laughing at how triggered he is by the process. His commentary is "rational" irrationality. He's applying "Realpolitik" thinking to analysis of an individual. That's idiotic. Truly. John Bolton is a brilliant lawyer in many ways but he doesn't recognize when he's out of his depth. He was in a position of trust and then used that to "oversee" a "psych profile" study of his boss. That's crazy, actually. He had no duty to do so, and he clearly had no objective cognitive skills to do so either. Therefore he didn't even have any way to start a rational enquiry of the kinds of "controversies" he now thinks he can speak about. His demagogic "psych profile" gibberish is deranged insanity. Its the kind of bullshit that evolves in cults when they live with too much power that isn't properly checked.
1