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

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