rigorousintuition.ca

Sepka wrote:Bill Maher and his audience were peacefully assembled, engaging in an orderly and legal activity, and these clowns did their best to disrupt it. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the disruptive people were trying to say, or even if they had any message at all. It says a lot about the "Truthers", I think, that these are the tactics that seem most natural to them.

Why do the liberals attack Bill Oreilly when the left are just as full of shit?

chlamor wrote:

Why do the liberals attack Bill Oreilly when the left are just as full of shit?

You falsely equate liberals with the left. It seems to be a common mistake.

jingofever wrote:I don't see any reason to assume Maher was in on it just because the protesters were behaving exactly as everyone expects them to. If there was a puppetmaster it was Alex Jones and he will probably be interviewing these people on Monday.

IanEye wrote:In the end, perhaps I have been too in the thrall of Peter Dale Scott's "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK". Mr. Scott believes that by studying 11-22-63, one can gain insight into 09-11-01.

sunny wrote:

et in Arcadia ego wrote:I don't really care what the message was from the hecklers; my point is the DU community, constantly freaking out and bitching impotently about the rise of the Fourth Reich rising in their midst are well on their own ways to being brown shirts themselves..

Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink are singled out for special scorn at places like Dkos and FDL. These people are sitting there typing on their computers, "calling, writing, and faxing their representatives" while Cindy and Code Pink are out there doing something. Some of them even claim to be baby boomers who participated in anti-Vietnam War protests, but these people have no idea what real activism looks like. They don't know from putting their bodies on the line, engaging in civil disobedience and getting arrested. They go on and on about how dire our situation is, but they continue to sit there, ridiculing people who are doing something. They actively discourage participation in protest marches. It makes. me. sick.

IanEye » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:57 am wrote:

"How's your Paranoia, Brian?" - Bob Dylan

et - I am sure the thought has crossed your mind, but reading what you have assembled here, the whole thing smacks to me of the 60 Minutes Bush TANG thing. Where the whole thing is a set-up and every aspect is controlled by the same PuppetMaster.

Meaning, Mr. Maher knew the hecklers would be there, knew their "agenda", because it was from the same Pro Wrestling script he was reading from.

The DU bloggers unsuing comments? Paid for by the same people, much as the "hey, Rather's lying because the font wasn't around then, blah blah" comments were paid for.

Again, perhaps my mind is too steeped in paranoia. But I frequent a blog where I am supposed to give actual credence to the idea that Sidney Aaron Chayefsky was a CIA stooge and all of the talent and effort that went into making the film "Network" was merely to provide a distraction from an article in Rolling Stone about Mockingbird. All of this in '77, Carter's first year in office.

The same Rolling Stone that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, ran full page ads in all of the Trade mags stating "Perception - Reality".

Under the Perception title was a pic of a bong toting hippie. Under the Reality title was a pic of Reagan at the mic. Below all of this was the copy that informed the potential buyers of ad space in Rolling stone that, despite many people's perception of the magazine, the reality was the majority of their readers voted for Reagan. So, "Hey, corporate America!! Don't hesitate to buy ad space here and shill your razor blades and deodorant!!"

In the end, the "Truth" of the matter is a synthesis. RS readers did smoke a lot of pot and a lot of them voted for Reagan. Just ask Ann Coulter the next time you see her at a RatDog concert. Especially if the venue is Bohemian Grove, I hear those tickets are real hard to come by.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that as a faithful RI reader, I try to be as rigorous as I can be. How deep can I go when I ponder the whole "Politically Incorrect" heckler flap? As deep as I go when I become wary of someone who wants me to cry foul at "Network" in order to support a magazine that in '85, Reagan's first year of his second term, was actually trying to get me to consider Michael J Fox, Don Johnson, and Bruce Willis as viable musical alternatives. There they were on the cover of RS, month in, month out, with guitars in their hands.

At which point, I told Rolling Stone to go fuck itself and bought something called SPIN, a magazine put out by a pornographer's son which, in the first issue I bought, had an article by Geza X which taught me point by point how to "DIY" make my own music and put it out myself. I should also be honest and say that I had never heard of the Stooge's "Fun House" album until I read an article in SPIN by Henry Rollins that was so laudatory of the album I had to check it out myself.

These days when I happen to pick up an issue of SPIN I usually say to myself, "this magazine sucks now", and Rollins is doing voice over gigs for GM. such is Life. Hi - Ho.

Evil forces infiltrate spaces constantly. Sometimes they even infiltrate spaces they already "own". Be rigorous. Be intuitive.

The well you drank fresh water from a year ago may now be poisoned.

Things fall apart.