dagblog - Comments for "Ghost of J. Edgar Haunts Flynn Investigation"

It's hard to let go of the

artappraiser — Sat, 23 May 2020 05:35:26 +0000

It's hard to let go of the ideation of 'merican exceptionalism and 'merican empire, lefties are often the biggest believers, but unlike the MAGA folks, they don't like the idea? Hard to let go of the thought that the U.S. hegemon isn't behind everything and controlling everything, cause thinking different means chaos? It's an orderly view of the world, same as ultra-conservatives would like things to be. No change, alwasy same playas.

Lulu, where was I (or Marcy

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 23 May 2020 05:01:22 +0000

In reply to Just can’t help yourself, can

Lulu, where was I (or Marcy largely) inaccurate?

Just 1 - forget the rest of "the Gish".

And this DoJ story + Russiagate is our most important - that's where I put comments and evidence

Lulu's still chasing US

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 23 May 2020 04:57:23 +0000

In reply to Let's talk about the "gray

Lulu's still chasing US responsibility for Syria and Libya and Ukraine down his rabbit hole, and ignoring all the other participants.

Let's talk about the "gray

moat — Fri, 22 May 2020 23:41:14 +0000

In reply to I don't know where the

Let's talk about the "gray areas."

I am confused when you talk about who you would vote for. I would elect a German Shepard over Trump should the occasion arise; Any German Shepard.

I thought the matter being discussed was whether a rational person could sort out the claims made by the Trump and Obama administrations regarding the Russian influence in the last election.

Where are the gray areas in that discussion?

I don't know where the

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 22 May 2020 23:04:44 +0000

In reply to History should be corrected

I don't know where the fulcrum is. I do know that real life, as you alluded to earlier, has convinced me that some things can be accepted as fact using a very strict definition of the word. In between those facts there are the various shades of gray areas where I make weighted judgments as to what I can believe with what confidence.

You say: " As a matter of scale, that perspective could either mean an inclination to do something on the basis of a set of biases or a determined effort to bring about an end at whatever cost." Thanks for that explanation. It cannot help but bring the current Presidential campaign to mind. Voting for someone who ate boiled babies might be a line I couldn't cross but is that the end of the spectrum that we find ourselves on, the end where we would vote for someone who did eat baby legs in order to bring about the end of Trump. I don't intend to avoid the truth as I see it to justify my decision to vote for Biden even though he participated from a position of power in decisions that got plenty of babies boiled. I guess I'll just consider him the lesser evil because I don't really believe he would eat them.

Thanks for your thought provoking comments.

I have 2 big DoJ threads +

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 May 2020 22:09:49 +0000

In reply to Just can’t help yourself, can

I have 2 big DoJ threads + responding to you, though you just post your Turley & Greenwald stuff, & ignore any refutations.

Your Syria stuff is still focused on 1 gas attack, and ignoring the much larger atrocities, including ISIS freed up again by Trump. Still fetishising over some spurious US gov wrongdoing and ignoring all the Putin/Assad/Ereogan madness because only complaint say about Obama/Hillary truly makes you happy.

History should be corrected

moat — Fri, 22 May 2020 22:01:15 +0000

In reply to I agree with everything you

History should be corrected by evidence that previous narratives are incorrect. What counts as evidence in that regard is the critical issue. The link to Baudrillard's text was provided to show what giving up on evidence looks like; When every claim is a product of a deeper crime, then arguing about details is the continuance of the crime.

But I am not arguing for or against that point of view. I bring it up to introduce the idea of scale into the discussion of what is evidence. You have said that you are inclined to view all accounts of what happened in regards to the 2016 election as colored by the motivations of the agents in the agencies. As a matter of scale, that perspective could either mean an inclination to do something on the basis of a set of biases or a determined effort to bring about an end at whatever cost. One has to move to the Baudrillard end of the spectrum to make differences of that kind immaterial to what is going on.

Everybody who does not want to go that far needs a fulcrum point of leverage, an idea of sufficient reason to affirm or deny the accounts that are given.

So, where is that fulcrum point in the issue under discussion?

I agree with everything you

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 22 May 2020 20:48:45 +0000

In reply to If there is a long term way

I agree with everything you say here, as I understand it, except that I don't know anything about Baudrillard so I will just take your word on that part. One thing about my agreement though that I want to make clear is that when new facts are found about our history, facts as things that actually happened and which disprove some common perception of history, then that history should be re-written. Hiding or ignoring or distorting parts of history, or giving credence to definitively disproved history to support an argument or to push a narrative can be part of an affective way of weaponizing history. I believe I often see that. Do you believe you ever see that?

Just can’t help yourself, can

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 22 May 2020 20:12:59 +0000

In reply to All very vague.

Just can’t help yourself, can you. Your Gish Gallop, a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments, is tiresome. Regarding your first five questions, I don't feel like galloping after your bouncing ball. Regarding your final off-topic question though, one with a smear by implication, are you seriously suggesting that I have not commented on and linked to issues regarding Syria in the last three and a half years?

You do have a proper smoking,

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 May 2020 17:11:59 +0000

In reply to If there is a long term way

You do have a proper smoking, n'est-ce pas?