Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|

China's sophisticated technology puts massive buildings up within a matter of weeks, accommodation tens of thousands, who then go to work on incredible infrastructure projects.
Not really agreeing or disagreeing with the majority of your statements. But I think that some of what you are saying is not based in real knowledge. I have spoken with young people from China about exactly what you mention above. Yes, they can build a massive highway or building in a matter of days or weeks, but the quality is no where near the quality that we produce elsewhere.
 
Take Obama for example. Throughout his eight years in office, he has talked the talk, but has hardly delivered in reality.
didn't Obama's family have really strong CIA connections? i.e. they were in the CIA. I wonder if that had anything to do with him being so quick to fall in line with "the plan." i.e. war/terror/torture. Obama didn't start it, Bush did, but he didn't miss a beat in continuing it.
 
Well, I see the problem Jurgen, but I don't see how telling us to 'look at the stillness surrounding us, stripped of our interpretation' will do the job? Are you saying that we can change simply by being aware of the situation? I'm guessing that most people are unable to see what this means. Are you saying that limiting our reality to the present moment, to learn to live in that way will be capable of changing our.... 'being'? I don't know about others, but I'm willing to try to learn exactly what you mean. This is a genuine question with good intent. What exactly do you hope to achieve by your latest posts in this thread? I'm struggling to understand but willing to learn.

Is it just enough, as Eckhart Tolle says, to "Take one conscious breath." (My whole post could have been condensed to this one question.)
The problem I see is we are addicted to the same old diet, like our food we consume, we think that everything we need to live, is on the outside. Mostly we take on board what others have pre-digested. That is not necessarily bad if it helps us to unlock our own inner door for experience. By that I mean the experience of pure reality, not an interpretation of it based on belief or assumptions. First hand experiences always sticks better than hearsay. That can only happen if we become accustomed to a different way of perceiving the world, which is directly. Very often the first discovery we make is that the immediate reality is actually very little, we breath, we feel, we think. Most of the time not much else happens until we start interacting with our environment and the people therein. Then when we start interacting from a point of this clarity or neutrality we find we have no prejudicial ballast and start interacting on the bases of "I am OK, you are OK" and go from there and see what happens. From this point of awareness we can quickly discover when a person is not OK, and our heart instinctively goes out to them. This is prompted by the stillness of the underlying reality which has dislodged self interest and doesn't change. The things we normally take for reality are mostly interpretations. Without our interpretations and the constant inner commentator we simply observe reality as it is. It's not all that difficult as it is made out to be. It's not a big thing it's just giving different priority to our awareness, Commentator? or Being?

So when I say Trump and Hillary are egomaniacs it is simply an observation which may or may not have implications. I wouldn't say Obama was an egomaniac like these two. He started with high ideas and ended up overwhelmed and making poor decisions (perhaps even being manipulated as Alex was implying). He was higher on the awareness scale, but perhaps not as high as Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King. The reasons we are unable to pick enlightened leaders is because we ourselves only see what we are and only recognize what we find outside in ourselves. So Trump or Hillary are our appropriate candidates in sync with our spiritual development. Of course at one stage quite a large part of the US population rooted for a leader much higher on the awareness scale, which was Berni Sanders, but he was knocked out. The good thing I think is that a large part of the American People are generally much more aware than a few decades ago which hopefully will prevent the excesses of an egomaniac as a president.
 
Last edited:

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
Jim, I posted that in anger, using sarcasm. For that I'm sorry, and I should be more careful about the potential to insult people.

But re: PBS. Do you think privatized networks would have turned on so many people to Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith et al, as PBS did?
 
a lotta different problems and issues get tangled here. I found this funny/telling:
Thank you Alex. I always take your posts very seriously. I have a very good friend from Tanzania (Incidentally we are going to produce a documentary this year together about consciousness and awareness). We often discuss the subtle aspects of racism, the ones which almost seem to be part of the DNA and which cannot be clearly defined, but come to the surface when not really expected. Until we became friends I really thought we had made progress since the sixties, but we haven't, not really, not on a deeper level and perhaps not even made much progress since the abolition of slavery on the deep levels. The shooting and incarceration of black people may fall into this category. It even has been proven that people of mixed race can be racially prejudiced despite their claims and sincere perception that they are not. So it seems to be a particular cultural trait which seems to sit very deep within our human psyche and the only way I can see this being addressed and perhaps shifted is if we collectively arrive at a higher state of awareness.
 
Thank you Alex. I always take your posts very seriously. I have a very good friend from Tanzania (Incidentally we are going to produce a documentary this year together about consciousness and awareness).
thx for the heads-up. pls keep me updated so we can have you back on Skeptiko to tell folks about it.

We often discuss the subtle aspects of racism, the ones which almost seem to be part of the DNA and which cannot be clearly defined, but come to the surface when not really expected.
I understand and agree. differences arise when we weigh what kind of state/gov involvement we need to best move forward. I lean toward less gov, but I understand why some lean toward more.
 
thx for the heads-up. pls keep me updated so we can have you back on Skeptiko to tell folks about it.


I understand and agree. differences arise when we weigh what kind of state/gov involvement we need to best move forward. I lean toward less gov, but I understand why some lean toward more.
Less government works for me too :)
No government is the best government. Long live anarchy! :D
 
My apologies if it was just speculation. I interpreted your words a bit more definitively in tone. What you've shared in this thread indicates, to me at least, someone with pretty strong views on people of wealth.

I don't know Buffett either nor did you hit any nerve (does that actually happen?). I just found it odd to use him as an example of damaging Elites, or abuse of power. By all accounts Buffett has seemed to be a pretty straight up guy who's enjoyed great success and has committed to giving as much raw capital to charitable causes as anyone in history. Again, the difficulty with stereotyping anyone to a group. Right?
I wasn't using him as an example of anything other than someone with, what I think, is an unhealthy obsession. That is all.
 
Jim, I posted that in anger, using sarcasm. For that I'm sorry, and I should be more careful about the potential to insult people.

But re: PBS. Do you think privatized networks would have turned on so many people to Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith et al, as PBS did?
IIRC, PBS New York (it's not monolithic) received huge grants from the Koch brothers. There was a documentary, Citizen Koch, which was allegedly pulled due to Koch influence.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.usne...rs-gifts-to-society?context=amp?client=safari
Consider public television, which has reportedly received more than $23 million from the Kochs in the last decade. David Koch's affiliation with two of the Public Broadcast System's flagship TV stations, WNET in New York and Boston's WGBH, has caused more than one headache for the station and PBS in general.

Critics say his presence led PBS to quash plans to air a 2012 documentary, "Citizen Koch," which contends that the billionaire brothers and their allies are funding a political war against employees' unions, the Democrats' most powerful allies.
Point is, PBS is not free from bias nor propaganda. They also receive a lot of funding from private groups, calling into question, long before Trump, whether PBS should continue on the public dole.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ment-fund-pbs-and-npr/?utm_term=.e9fddc2033a8
 
Can anyone here explain to me why the feminists are so up in arms against Trump? Other than the "grab 'em by the *****" comment, was there something more? As a woman, I have my own objections to Trump, but none have anything to do with him being misogynistic.

Moreover, what is up with the cognitive dissonance running rampant with these protesters? So, an election, that was valid (as valid as any US election anyway) that put the candidate in office that they didn't want is grounds for...what? Impeachment? Assassination? But the DNC rigging the primary and gettin caught dead to rights is a-ok?

And with Bill Clinton's history of sexual harassment and assault is no cause for concern, but a moronic (and classless) comment is cause to call for the assassination of Trump?

I just don't get it. Anyone care to enlighten me? I apparently am missing something major here.
 
Can anyone here explain to me why the feminists are so up in arms against Trump?

I just don't get it. Anyone care to enlighten me? I apparently am missing something major here.
I would speculate that it relates to:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm
Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion?

TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/
President Donald Trump signed an executive action on Monday reinstating the so-called Mexico City Policy, which bars international non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions from receiving US government funding.
 
I would speculate that it relates to:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm
Q: Do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v. Wade, which includes -- in fact, states -- a woman's right to abortion?

TRUMP: Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that's really what's going to be. That'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trump-mexico-city-policy/
Ah, interesting. But, it's unlikely because Roe v. Wade was about challenging the constitutionality of states not allowing abortion. The Supreme Court already ruled that disallowing abortion was a violation of constitutional rights, and judges generally do not like to overrule prior judicial decisions, especially at the Supreme Court level, so to say it would be an uphill battle is putting it lightly.

Regardless, it seems like they're protesting something that hasn't actually happened yet?
Alrighty then.
 
Can anyone here explain to me why the feminists are so up in arms against Trump? Other than the "grab 'em by the *****" comment, was there something more?

I just don't get it. Anyone care to enlighten me? I apparently am missing something major here.
Just look at him.

If that doesn't work, try listening.
 
Can anyone here explain to me why the feminists are so up in arms against Trump? Other than the "grab 'em by the *****" comment, was there something more? As a woman, I have my own objections to Trump, but none have anything to do with him being misogynistic.

Moreover, what is up with the cognitive dissonance running rampant with these protesters? So, an election, that was valid (as valid as any US election anyway) that put the candidate in office that they didn't want is grounds for...what? Impeachment? Assassination? But the DNC rigging the primary and gettin caught dead to rights is a-ok?

And with Bill Clinton's history of sexual harassment and assault is no cause for concern, but a moronic (and classless) comment is cause to call for the assassination of Trump?

I just don't get it. Anyone care to enlighten me? I apparently am missing something major here.
Unfortunately, modern Left movements have deteriorated greatly since their bloom in 1960s - 1970s. Now they are massively plagued with irrational, hysterical, bigoted "social justice warriors" whose motivation can hardly be deciphered by anyone who does not share their wild reality-tunnel. Whether their motives are, one fact is obvious: they attack anyone whose views show even 0,0001% difference from their sacred dogma.
 
Just look at him.

If that doesn't work, try listening.
Aww, come on. Looks shouldn't be a deciding factor, if that were the case then most politicians wouldn't be where they are. But I'm assuming you were making a joke.

As for listening to him, I agree, he's not the most eloquent of speakers. But Obama sure was, and look where that got us.

Regardless, I still cannot see where he specifically targeted women in any derogatory way.

I remain baffled.
 
Unfortunately, modern Left movements have deteriorated greatly since their bloom in 1960s - 1970s. Now they are massively plagued with irrational, hysterical, bigoted "social justice warriors" whose motivation can hardly be deciphered by anyone who does not share their wild reality-tunnel. Whether their motives are, one fact is obvious: they attack anyone whose views show even 0,0001% difference from their sacred dogma.
It's honestly quite disturbing. I can only hope that the media is making it look like a bigger deal than it actually is, and by that I mean either inflating protest participation numbers or not showing how small the crowds actually are.
 
Top