Does America’s next civil war begin in Oregon?

[Mayacaman]

Posted @ Natural News:

(a right-wing, libertarian, health food journal)

"Does America’s next civil war begin in Oregon? Gov. Kate Brown orders state police to round up Republican lawmakers at gunpoint"

Dateline: Sunday, June 23, 2019 by: Mike Adams

[cyberanvil]

According to the article, the same Republicans already used this as a tactic this session. Looks like you get one walkout for free as a negotiation tactic, but the second one costs you.

[wisewomn]

Natural News: one of the most discredited sites on the internet. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/

According to the article, the same Republicans already used this as a tactic this session. Looks like you get one walkout for free as a negotiation tactic, but the second one costs you.

[Mayacaman]

No doubt about it, Wise Woman, "Natural News" has a very definite "right-wing bias."

-But that does not mean that America is not headed towards a Civil War.

I read everything I can get my hands on -All across the so-called "political Spectrum." Which -as I have stated elsewhere- is not a simple two-dimensional 'line-segment' but rather a kind of Mobius-Loop.

I learned to do that -read everything- from the late Mae Brussell. That is what she taught her disciples to do.

Let me ask you a Question, Wise Woman: Do you get all of your opinions from sites like:

"MEDIA BIAS / FACT CHECK -The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource" ?

Personally, I would find it both boring & lame to have to rely on such opinionated people for my own "opinions."

Such things -Opinions- are far too precious to gather from the Automat down on 42nd Street. Here: Let us serve you up an opinion: just put in a quarter, and out comes a piece of opinion in the guise of lemon meringue pie.

Let's see what the Opinion-Meister has to say about Global Research:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/


"Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation...."

-And that of course is the Bottom Line. You need not search any further...

-But as for me, I'd take Global Research any day over mediabiasfactcheck.com. I'd take Global Research over Natural News, also. But that's just my opinion. Just saying.

-Just because you, personally, do not like the bias of a thing does not mean that there is not a certain amount of reality there, lurking in the shadows, waiting to bite...

Check this out: Civil War, 2019, America

- And Keep hitting the "More Results" bar at the foot of the page, until you get the bigger picture...

[Mayacaman]

wisewomn, Not only is "Natural News" a "dicey" platform; Mike Adams, the Web-meister there is already inciting violence {see below, red} against Antifa, the Black-shirted shock-troops of the George Soros -funded "Left" - who have, unwittingly, become like the thing they hate, i.e., fascists. I wouldn't discount the words of this fellow Mike Adams, native american, flag-waver, "Health Ranger," if I were you. He's in the loop; a Civil War is in the pipeline... Here is what Mike Adams wrote recently about the impending conflict:

Man who firebombed government building belonged to armed Antifa group promoted by CNN and the left-wing media


https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-...ing-media.html

It’s time for the DOJ to declare Antifa to be a terrorist group

Why hasn’t the Trump administration declared Antifa to be a domestic terrorism group yet? It’s abundantly clear at this point that Antifa is a terrorist organization, and its members train people how to operate as armed terrorists, just like we saw with this attempted firebombing of a government building.

Antifa is described as, “the Democrat Party’s terrorist arm” by John C. Velisek at All News Pipeline:
Calling themselves anti-fascists, they use the same organizational mobs of white thugs dressed in black to attempt to intimidate any who disagree with them, and damage or steal property. They are no better than the shock troops during Hitler’s regime and will meet the same fate. In any confrontation, the masks must be torn off, and those behind them exposed.

The media are willing accomplices, inferring that Antifa is right. The Mainstream media continues to inflame the political violence and division that makes Antifa possible.

Antifa has learned organization and tactics while Trump was running for President. Both Antifa and the MSM blamed right-wing Trump supporters for the violence at his rallies, knowing full well it was the far left anarchists of Antifa that were responsible for the violence. After Charlottesville, CNN’s Don Lemon compared them to freedom fighters while CNN’s Cuomo compared them to the battle of Normandy.

Clearly, Antifa is a terrorist operation, and it’s being openly backed by CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other left-wing journo-terrorism fake news publishers, all of whom are complicit in the stirring up of mass hysteria and violence across the lunatic Left.

It’s time to not just put down Antifa terrorists, but to arrest the fake “journalists” who are deliberately inciting violence across America as part of their attempted overthrow of the United States government and the destruction of America from within. They hide behind the First Amendment while trying to destroy this nation, and it’s time they be stopped.

I predict it won’t be long before legally armed Americans open up on Antifa terrorists in self defense. Antifa terrorists are deranged, violent, lawless cowards, and they need to be stopped by law-abiding Americans and law enforcement. If you wear an Antifa mask, you should prepare to be engaged, for the American people have had enough of your unbridled violence, hatred, bigotry and mass mental illness.

When a dog turns rabid, you put him down. Antifa has become nothing but rabid dogs, drooling with mental insanity and a seething, psychopathic desire to destroy civil society. Hilariously, most Antifa members are snowflake white people who think they’re “fighting fascists” when they’re the ones who have actually become the fascists. They hide behind masks because they’re cowards and communists. And yes, they’re terrorists, too. It’s time to take down Antifa and rid society of these dangerous left-wing terrorists.
Stay informed. Read more at Antifa.news.{ [a right-wing site that monitors Antifa.)

[cyberanvil]

What! How can you dismiss Media Bias/Fact Check and at the same time proclaim Opinion-Meister as the paragon of non-bias? Media checking Media. Hummmm.
Personal opinion -- ANTIFA should be labeled a Terrorist group. Their actions surly match the FBI’s definition.
The official FBI website defines Domestic Terrorism as. ---
Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
--for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.
Is free speech dead?
Journalist Andy Ngo on Antifa and his Assault in Portland https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-jo...-83E4-126A1728

[podfish]

...Personal opinion -- ANTIFA should be labeled a Terrorist group. ..

right, and Benghazi!! of course there's some symmetry between actions on the left and on the right, if you're generous about your definition of symmetry. There's no remote equivalence. Your roughed-up reporter compares to the protester run over in Charlottesville I suppose, though the white supremacist group whose member did it doesn't get a cool name like "ANTIFA". They're not at all equivalent. I'm sure you've got tons of anecdotes from Fox et al about the horrible actions of Antifa, but the clear majority of terrorist actions in the country these days, and I'll go out on a limb and claim the clear majority of hostile and uncharitable antisocial interactions, are driven by white fear and hostility to their perceived usurpers. "You will not replace us" is such an illuminating slogan; real minority groups are asking for inclusion and fair treatment, or even just acknowledgement of their humanity ("Black lives matter"). There's symmetry but no equivalence there either.

Even if there are some legitimate reasons to support some of the positions of people on the right, or Trumpies in general, their fellow-travelers are so unattractive that most of us can't be put in the position of seeming to be allies.

[Mayacaman]

cyberanvil wrote:

What! How can you dismiss Media Bias/Fact Check and at the same time proclaim Opinion-Meister as the paragon of non-bias? Media checking Media. Hummmm.

Apparently, cyberanvil, you did not read my missive carefully enough to understand that "Opinion-Meister" {i.e. "opinion master"} was the nick-name that I gave to Media Bias/Fact Check. Read it again - this time, carefully...

Let's see what the Opinion-Meister has to say about Global Research:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/


"Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation...."

-And that of course is the Bottom Line. You need not search any further...

-But as for me, I'd take Global Research any day over mediabiasfactcheck.com. I'd take Global Research over Natural News, also. But that's just my opinion. Just saying.

What I am saying, cyberanvil, is that I do not need a site like mediabiasfactcheck.com to do my thinking for me. -And that the manner in which they dismiss Global Research - a site with thousands of articles and chock full of data - is quite vapid.

There are plenty of opinions embedded in the many, many articles on Global Research that I am quite sure that I would disagree with, were i to read them all...

But, all in all, I appreciate the site and the radical, anti-Globalist { & anti-NATO} spin on the news that is presented there. That is my opinion. It is only an opinion.

Some people maintain that Professor Michel Chossudovsky is a Russian Agent - that he works for Putin & Co. =More "Russiagate" conspiracy thinking. Everybody gets to pick their own poison.

[Mayacaman]

podfish, I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean by the following reference to Benghazi:

right, and Benghazi!! of course there's some symmetry between actions on the left and on the right, if you're generous about your definition of symmetry...

What went on at Benghazi is not simply a "right-wing conspiracy." That is a very shallow understanding of the length and breadth of it. The Canadian Left, {i.e., Global Research} fills in the gaps in the picture, and the vast body of research presented on that site goes way beyond what the House & Senate & talking head pundit Republicans ever said on the subject. Look and see: Peer into the abyss, if you will. Spend a little time pondering it; don't just reflexively jerk your eyes away. Here's the link> https://www.globalresearch.ca/search...ghazi&x=11&y=9

[cyberanvil]

Yes, you use of “nick names” was inventive.

“If you were wondering who is there to fact check the fact checkers, that would be MBFC. The website is a bias rating resource and even news apps and extensions like CivikOwl integrate these ratings into their own systems. The site’s reputation means that it has long been a resource that internet users can visit to check the bias in their favorite news websites.”

So where does Media Bias/Fact Check rank?

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/true-5...king-websites/

[cyberanvil]

What went on at Benghazi is not simply a "right-wing conspiracy." That is a very shallow understanding of the length and breadth of it. The Canadian Left, {i.e., Global Research} fills in the gaps in the picture, and the vast body of research presented on that site goes way beyond what the House & Senate & talking head pundit Republicans ever said on the subject. Look and see: Peer into the abyss, if you will. Spend a little time pondering it; don't just reflexively jerk your eyes away.

can't we just get the Readers Digest version from you? of course, this would be an opinion piece.

[Mayacaman]

Thank you for the reference to Make Use Of, cyberanvil. I bookmarked the page. I'll try to make use of it; no pun intended. As far as getting a Readers Digest summary from me of what happened at Benghazi and the aftermath - how the weapons from the vanquished forces of Gaddafi in Libya wound up in the hands of the ISIS crazies in Syria - I must protest that I don't do Readers Digest.

I can do succinct summaries; but when I supply links in comments in public forums, it is so that people can do their own research, and seek for themselves. That's the way I prefer to contribute to dialog, and raise consciousness.

-Apart from stating my own declared opinions - declared as such - I never make any statement of facts in any public forum that I can't back up with references. So I suggest, look at the data.

Personally I don't care what mediabiasfactcheck says about Global Research. I am able to think for myself. I don't need food testers to sample what I eat or think. Wikipedia dismisses Global Research also. Here is their succinct summary:

Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and conspiracy theorist. He is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa and the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which publishes conspiracy theories.

-That's how it is done these days; just dismiss the person or institution as a dealing in "conspiracy theories." Most people are so brainwashed with their own internalized oppression & Pavlovian conditioning that those two words {"conspiracy theory"} linked together, are quite enough to scare most comers away...

Here is the pile that turns up on Global Research when one spins the words "Gaddafi, Libya, weapons, ISIS," in the Search box at that site - over three thousand articles. In this case, where there's smoke, there is also fire.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=Gaddafi+%2C+Libya%2C+weapons%2C+ISIS%2C&x=11&y=12

[cyberanvil]

So little time and so much to do.
I have researched Benghazi and have mostly satisfied my curiosity. Always open to new info, but for me it's just not that interesting. I'm just not into reading the War and Peace version of Benghazi story.

[Mayacaman]

So little time and so much to do.

That's just about encapsulates everyone's excuse for not being informed: I just don't have time.

I have researched Benghazi and have mostly satisfied my curiosity..

In other words, I already know all I'm gonna know about it. Been there; done that...

Always open to new info, but for me it's just not that interesting.

It's not that my mind is actually closed; I'm just bored.

I'm just not into reading the War and Peace version of Benghazi story.

Anything beyond my current limits of knowledge on the subject would be overload.

Questions:
-Can you click on a link and scroll down?
-Can you scan the list of articles as you scroll down; can you speed read the titles of the articles?
-Not all thirty-two hundred of them, but just a couple of score?
-Or is there too little time to do even that little diligence on this subject?


https://www.globalresearch.ca/search...S%2C&x=11&y=12

[cyberanvil]

Got to give you Props. Your list of excuses is mostly correct (on this one subject).

I've seen that site before. As far as I'm concerned, it is an extremely biased Leftist propaganda machine. Could Soros be funding it? Inquiring minds want to know. Check on that, will you?
In closing, your attempt to educate might be more effective if the condescension wasn't so strong.

[Mayacaman]

I've seen that site before. As far as I'm concerned, it is an extremely biased Leftist propaganda machine. Could Soros be funding it? Inquiring minds want to know. Check on that, will you?
In closing, your attempt to educate might be more effective if the condescension wasn't so strong.

"...an extremely biased Leftist propaganda machine." Wow. Such blindness. I'm sorry if I come on as condescending, but - since the age of two - I don't have much patience with stupidity; especially when it is a bi-product of laziness. If you intend to write on serious political subjects, at least, get real about them. Be willing to be informed - from all quarters...

Seriously, George Soros has nothing to do with Global Research. But in order to 'get' that, you would first have to realize that Soros is a "Globalist" - and that "Global Research" is not your garden variety "Leftist propaganda machine."

In order to understand that, you would first have to discern that there are many shades of what has historically been called "Left." The so-called "Left" that George Soros & his billionaire cronies sponsor is a pseudomorph. The eedjits who take his money are 'useful idiots.'

Global Research, on the other hand, hews to an old-school, pro- national sovereignty sort of radicalism that is similar to the tack that Robert LaFollette, Sr. took back in the 1920's with regards to the World Court. He was in opposition to America entering into it, and he decried it as an extension of the European plutocracy. Lenin said something very similar about the League of Nations: he called it a "British Imperialist den of thieves." That is just about right. The League was a project of the Rhodes Trust.

Read what has been published on the Global Research website about Soros: Here is what turns up when one types "George Soros" in the Search box @ Global Research: https://www.globalresearch.ca/search...os%22&x=11&y=9

[cyberanvil]

I don't have much patience with stupidity; especially when it is a bi-product of laziness. If you intend to write on serious political subjects, at least, get real about them. Be willing to be informed - from all quarters...

Yes Sir! Aye Aye Captain.

Sure wish you would stop posting links which lead to links, which produce more links. I suppose this process is meant to produce credibility?

I hope you agree that Soros could donate to Global Research. He has plenty of money to throw around.

Soros is a bad man. Paraphrasing.

His presidential candidate lost in 2016, but this setback likely won’t slow Soros down. His political activism portfolio is well diversified. Backing organizations dedicated to social agitation and change-for-change’s-sake, Soros has caused tsunamis of upheaval, in the United States and around the world.
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order,” Soros has declared, “is the United States.” Ergo, that constitutional republic must be weakened and its allies degraded. The Sorosian world order—one of open borders and global governance, antithetical to the ideals and experience of the West—could then assume command.
In a New York City luxury hotel, Soros recently huddled with other devastated operatives in the so-called Democratic Alliance, including former House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-chairman Keith Ellison. According to Politico, they discussed strategies to combat President-elect Trump’s “terrifying assault on President’s Obama’s achievements.”

[Mayacaman]

Look, cyberanvil, in the first place I apologize - openly, and publicly - for implying that you are driven by stupidity. Perhaps it is only that you are willfully ignorant -{which may actually be worse, since stupid is a condition that is generally congenital, whereas, willful ignorance is volitional.} But at any rate, I do apologize. I'll try to be a little more polite, and gentle with you. But from the first, when you came on with that "Hmmm..." routine, I admit, I've been put off by your presence on this thread.

Can I say that I agree with you about George Soros? I would never accept a dime from that dirty billionaire. He was a Judenrat in the death camp & he collaborated with the SS in order to save his own skin. He has no regrets on that score. I agree with you - and with Michael Savage, also - on this point: George Soros is a bad man.

But Soros would not offer Global Research money. For you to not see that, exposes your monumental blindness about the the field that is called the "Left." It shows how ignorant - willfully ignorant - you are of the nuances of the "left." There still are radicals -old left radicals- who are not "Globalists" like the billionaire cronies of bad Mr. Soros. Global Research is a resource where journalists who oppose the movement towards "world governance" & the "new world order" can get published, electronically.

Back to Soros: I have no doubt, that by financing the new Blackshirts known as "ANTIFA" - who resemble nothing so much as Mussolini's Fascisti cadre at the point in 1919 when they were still in their "revolutionary phase" - that Soros is contributing to the eventual facilitation of the "Civil War" that is the subject of this thread. Can we take it from there, and stay on track? I'll try to be polite.

[Mayacaman]

The Signs are everywhere. Here is what you get when you do a web search with the terms, "Civil War, America, 2020"

[cyberanvil]

Mayacaman writes:

Look, cyberanvil, in the first place I apologize - openly, and publicly - for implying that you are driven by stupidity. Perhaps it is only that you are willfully ignorant -{which may actually be worse, since stupid is a condition that is generally congenital, whereas, willful ignorance is volitional.}

“Willfully ignorant’? You are partially right on one point. I am willfully ignorant because I choose to focus on areas of interest to me. Not having unlimited time, I indulge MY curiosity. I do not waste time on matters that are not interesting. Is there something wrong with choosing to pursue interests that do not match yours?

But at any rate, I do apologize. I'll try to be a little more polite, and gentle with you. But from the first, when you came on with that "Hmmm..." routine, I admit, I've been put off by your presence on this thread.
Yes, I sometimes poke a stick at various pompous Elites.
But Soros would not offer Global Research money. For you to not see that, exposes your monumental blindness about the the field that is called the "Left." It shows how ignorant - willfully ignorant - you are of the nuances of the "left."

You should have added IMHO. But then, it seems the stick has done it’s job.

Back to Soros: I have no doubt, that by financing the new Blackshirts known as "ANTIFA" - who resemble nothing so much as Mussolini's Fascisti cadre at the point in 1919 when they were still in their "revolutionary phase" - that Soros is contributing to the eventual facilitation of the "Civil War" that is the subject of this thread. Can we take it from there, and stay on track? I'll try to be polite.

I appreciate politeness, but I’m a big boy and can survive without it. It’s attitudes that can be irritating. So, in closing I’d remind you that my desire to follow threads of knowledge/interest do not have to match yours. I start and terminate at my own discretion. Right now I’m pursuing various threads. Like -----

Why has the Boeing X-37B robotic space plane been in orbit for 700 days?
Comparison of Roman Legion and Macedonian Phalanx.
Jay Leno’s Garage
Coast to Coast AM
And more.

[Mayacaman]

I've seen that site before. As far as I'm concerned, it is an extremely biased Leftist propaganda machine. Could Soros be funding it? Inquiring minds want to know. Check on that, will you? In closing, your attempt to educate might be more effective if the condescension wasn't so strong.

cyberanvil, I realize that I was extremely privileged to grow up in Berkeley back in the 1960's, where we had the Mediterraneum Cafe, with all of the tables of the various factions of the so-called "Left" on the ground floor. Upstairs, were the philosophers, poets, and religious. It was like the Areopagus, in the old days, in Athens.

All during the 'Sixties, after sliding in, nabbing a glass of iced water at the foot of the stairs, I used to find a table upstairs on the mezzanine, where one could overhear all the political chatter down below. We {the philosophical / religious / poetic crew) would laugh at how serious the politicos all were about ephemeral / temporal things.

So I am fortunate to have some grounding in what the term "left" actually means. It was only later, in the mid-seventies, that I would actually sit in with the political cadre on the ground floor. -The folks that one of my friends later termed the "cappuccino brigade" - the ones who had been arguing endlessly among themselves back in '68 about which faction was the authentic "revolutionary vanguard." Yes, it was laughable.

But your idea of the "left" seems to be derived from right wing talk radio. I mean, you sound like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Sorry to seem condescending, but you have a comic book idea about the subject {judging from your use of the term "leftist".}

If I could educate you on one point, It would be that not all "leftists" are "globalists" or "internationalists." This is especially true since George H.W. Bush unveiled the "New World Order" back in 1990, and got the U.N. to endorse his War {Gulf War One} on Iraq. The consortium of journalists who frequent "Global Research" are not the sorts who cotton to "Globalists" like George Soros. They just don't.

[cyberanvil]

The Signs are everywhere. Here is what you get when you do a web search with the terms, "Civil War, America, 2020"

Sounds like Al Gore has influenced you.

[Mayacaman]

Sounds like Al Gore has influenced you.

Wrong again, cyberanvil. I sure wish I could agree with you on something. But the only thing I agree with Al Gore about is that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, & the Greenland Ice Shelf are melting, post haste, and are about ready to slide into the Sea... & when that happens, the Seas will rise about one hundred and twenty feet {120 ft} all over the Planet. He got thatright.

...One more good reason to pick up stakes & depart from the Lowlands...

My friend Andy Caffrey, who is a a Wheel in the Garberville Green scene, was the one who turned Al Gore on to that truth, back in the 1990's; so it was not original with Gore. Al Gore is an opportunist in my book. -Just look into how he has capitalized on that "Carbon Credits" scheme of his. Anything to make a buck. I was not aware that he took a position of the coming Civil War in America.

[cyberanvil]

But your idea of the "left" seems to be derived from right wing talk radio. I mean, you sound like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. Sorry to seem condescending, but you have a comic book idea about the subject {judging from your use of the term "leftist".}

If I could educate you on one point, It would be that not all "leftists" are "globalists" or "internationalists." This is especially true since George H.W. Bush unveiled the "New World Order" back in 1990, and got the U.N. to endorse his War {Gulf War One} on Iraq. The consortium of journalists who frequent "Global Research" are not the sorts who cotton to "Globalists" like George Soros. They just don't.

One site is mentioned and you go off the deep end and accuse me of blanket labeling (sounds like something that present day Democrats practice).
George made some valid points. I didn't agree with the Iraqi invasion. I was not a Bush Super Fan.

[cyberanvil]

Wrong again, cyberanvil. I sure wish I could agree with you on something. But the only thing I agree with Al Gore about is that the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, & the Greenland Ice Shelf are melting, post haste, and are about ready to slide into the Sea... & when that happens, the Seas will rise about one hundred and twenty feet {120 ft} all over the Planet. He got thatright.

...One more good reason to pick up stakes & depart from the Lowlands...

My friend Andy Caffrey, who is a a Wheel in the Garberville Green scene, was the one who turned Al Gore on to that truth, back in the 1990's; so it was not original with Gore. Al Gore is an opportunist in my book. -Just look into how he has capitalized on that "Carbon Credits" scheme of his. Anything to make a buck. I was not aware that he took a position of the coming Civil War in America.

Of course Global Warming is happening. Been going on for millions of years. The point is that Gore and others presume that humanity plays a major part in it. I don't believe that even though there are some Scientists who would not care to endanger their government grants. Did you know that all of the computer models are wrong except one? Yes, the Russian model is the only one that hasn't been tweaked to produce political results.

[Mayacaman]

One site is mentioned and you go off the deep end and accuse me of blanket labeling (sounds like something that present day Democrats practice).
George made some valid points. I didn't agree with the Iraqi invasion. I was not a Bush Super Fan.

Cyberanvil, "blanket labeling" is not something that I practice myself. -At least I try, very hard, not to practice it. I did not mean to offend you. And you are correct, the present day "Democrats" indulge in that practice, up to their eyeballs.

-But so do all of the right-wing AM radio talk jockeys. Both sides engage in throwing mud pies at each other. It is so boring.

-And what the right-wing talk jocks call "radical leftist" has nothing at all to do with any of the factions that occupied the tables on the ground floor of the Mediterraneum Cafe in the 'Sixties. I mean, Hillary would have been laughed out of the joint - in a heartbeat.

-Contrary to what the "right-wing" talk jocks say about the 'mainstream media', it is not predominantly "leftist." - In point of fact, the MSM is about evenly divided along the predictable fault lines of what is currently labeled "left" & "right." That is the controlled dialectic.

In my humble opinion, it is better to take a position that transcends the fray; an overview. That, upon reflection {a nouveau epiphany of this very hour) is one of the benefits I received from all those years I sat in the mezzanine of the Med: I got an overview that was dispassionate, ironic & objective...

[podfish]

.... Did you know that all of the computer models are wrong except one? Yes, the Russian model is the only one that hasn't been tweaked to produce political results.

spoken with true confidence! actually, though, all of the computer models are 'wrong' by definition. Even the Russian one. And they've all been tweaked, though how anyone can be so sure that the motivation is political, when they're not part of the team doing the tweaking, isn't clear to me.

Models are mathematical constructs that make algorithmic analogies to real-world systems with the hope that you get some insight into the behavior of those systems. Sometimes you assume spherical cows; that's part of the process and is accounted for. What's political is to distort the knowledge you gain from these systems. Despite the claims of AGW deniers, it's pretty apparent that the political interpretations aren't coming from the scientists.

[cyberanvil]

spoken with true confidence! actually, though, all of the computer models are 'wrong' by definition. Even the Russian one. And they've all been tweaked, though how anyone can be so sure that the motivation is political, when they're not part of the team doing the tweaking, isn't clear to me.

Models are mathematical constructs that make algorithmic analogies to real-world systems with the hope that you get some insight into the behavior of those systems. Sometimes you assume spherical cows; that's part of the process and is accounted for. What's political is to distort the knowledge you gain from these systems. Despite the claims of AGW deniers, it's pretty apparent that the political interpretations aren't coming from the scientists.

Like anyone else, Scientists can be corrupted by Grants and Intimidation.

The truth about global warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5s...index=5&t=292s

[podfish]

Like anyone else, Scientists can be corrupted by Grants and Intimidation.

you know, there are a lot of scientists. If you believe that we're in a world where pretty much all of them have so little integrity that the promise of a meager grant from the cabals, or the threats from the cabal's thugs, are warping them all toward some pre-planned end, then you do. Why argue? I have enough contact with people who do live in that world, whose salaries and future prospects are to some degree dependent on getting research grants and publicity, to form my own opinion about how likely it is for them to distort their results. I also know that any average joe is a candidate to curry favor with their higher-ups in order to further their career. Do you think everyone you encounter, in retail places, in local government, in insurance companies, in any organization, is a puppet or a crook? Or just the ones who either thwart your wishes, or postulate theories you don't want to accept? What makes the authorities you trust, who see through all the obfuscations thrown up by the powerful, any more trustworthy than those you reject as pawns?

[cyberanvil]

-But so do all of the right-wing AM radio talk jockeys. Both sides engage in throwing mud pies at each other. It is so boring.

-And what the right-wing talk jocks call "radical leftist" has nothing at all to do with any of the factions that occupied the tables on the ground floor of the Mediterraneum Cafe in the 'Sixties. I mean, Hillary would have been laughed out of the joint - in a heartbeat.

-Contrary to what the "right-wing" talk jocks say about the 'mainstream media', it is not predominantly "leftist." - In point of fact, the MSM is about evenly divided along the predictable fault lines of what is currently labeled "left" & "right." That is the controlled dialectic.

Today's Democratic party is not the party of old. Heck, it isn't even the party of Clinton and Obama. The days of Mediterraneum Cafe are long gone and so it is with the old Democrats. Are there any Democratic moderates left? Very few I believe.
I disagree with you about the bias of the mainstream media. In fact I disagree so strongly that I won't bother to debate you on the subject.