faetal on 7/12/2016 at 20:21
He seems manic like a bundle of skin wrapped round a heap of ritalin.
Starker on 7/12/2016 at 22:56
It's so very American to think that fame and success are the same thing.
Tony_Tarantula on 7/12/2016 at 22:58
Also a bit late, but regarding all the blab about "Fake News": (
http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult4.htm)
Cult Indoctrination Tactics Excerpt:
Quote:
Isolation - Cults cut off members from the outside world (and even each other) to produce intense introspection, confusion, loss of perspective and a distorted sense of reality. The members of the cult become the person's only social contact and feedback mechanism.
Cults may keep new recruits from talking to other new recruits. They may only be allowed to speak with long-committed members for a period of time.
Cults may not allow unsupervised contact with the "outside world." In this way, there is no chance for a "reality check" or validation of a new member's concerns regarding the group.
Cults typically instill the belief that "outsiders" (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrongRenzatic on 7/12/2016 at 23:08
Yeah, leftist cucks don't know they're brainwashed sheep. Open your eyes. Take the red pill...
Tony_Tarantula on 8/12/2016 at 00:17
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Yeah, leftist cucks don't know they're brainwashed sheep. Open your eyes. Take the red pill...
Nope. The "RedPill" groups use exactly the same target except that the great evil is "feminists".
I just find it hilarious how everyone is no outraged about "fake news" when we have (
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia) proof of collaboration between outlets like the New York Times and the CIA going at least back to 2012.
Renzatic on 8/12/2016 at 01:49
See in. It's not fake news, so much as hype and propaganda, sourced to a more than willing outlet. You can't say they're lying, because Bin Laden was killed under Obama's watch during his first term.
But hey, guess what? The First Amendment covers this. If the New York Times wanted to work with Obama's cabinet, and sing his praises high during the run-up to the 2012 election, they have every right to do so. if the Democrats want to buddy up with MSNBC, or the Republicans make bedroom eyes at Fox News, and said outlets are willing to reciprocate the attention, there's nothing stopping them. There are no laws against it, nor any standards to be upheld. So long as no one's being coerced, and no one outright libels anyone else, it's a perfectly kosher relationship per the Constitution.
You don't have to like it. I'd prefer all my news sources to be entire neutral in politics, myself. But since around 1987, this is the way it is.
Vae on 8/12/2016 at 03:44
Quote Posted by faetal
Clutching at straws a bit now.
The "for better or for worse" speculative commentary is irrelevant to the grand achievement of becoming "Person of the Year"...which is a big win, in and of itself.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
If it makes you feel better, Vae, I don't think he's Hitler 2.0.
Of course you don't. Your mind hasn't been captured by hallucinatory fear...:laff:
But thanks for caring...:)
Quote:
I just think he's an idiot
Incorrect. He is quite the opposite.
You need to look deeper.
Quote:
who's too in love with himself.
He does exhibit certain narcissistic qualities...However, there is another part of his psychological makeup that keeps this in check.
Quote:
Now some of his hangers-on? That's a different story...
There's always that small slice of crazy in any group, which misrepresents the motivational psychology of the primary group.
Quote Posted by Starker
It's so very American to think that fame and success are the same thing.
"Fame" is
objectively a form of success.
nickie on 8/12/2016 at 08:12
I think you're right, Vae, he's definitely a winner. He's won my King of Tat award every year for the last 40 years.
Tony_Tarantula on 8/12/2016 at 18:08
Quote Posted by Renzatic
See in. It's not fake news, so much as hype and propaganda, sourced to a more than willing outlet. You can't say they're lying, because Bin Laden was killed under Obama's watch during his first term.
But hey, guess what? The First Amendment covers this. If the New York Times wanted to work with Obama's cabinet, and sing his praises high during the run-up to the 2012 election, they have every right to do so. if the Democrats want to buddy up with MSNBC, or the Republicans make bedroom eyes at Fox News, and said outlets are willing to reciprocate the attention, there's nothing stopping them. There are no laws against it, nor any standards to be upheld. So long as no one's being coerced, and no one outright libels anyone else, it's a perfectly kosher relationship per the Constitution.
You don't have to like it. I'd prefer all my news sources to be entire neutral in politics, myself. But since around 1987, this is the way it is.
Failing that I'd prefer them to be honest about their biases and agendas. While some folks are outraged about open endorsement of Hillary I think that's much preferable to those outlets pretending they're objective and unbiased because it means any semi-intelligent reader will know what lens to view their reporting through.
That said if you want more fake news, it turns out that the story about "fake news" was fake.
(
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-07/washington-post-apends-russian-propaganda-story-admits-it-may-be-fake)
Tony_Tarantula on 8/12/2016 at 18:15
Quote Posted by Vae
The "for better or for worse" speculative commentary is irrelevant to the grand achievement of becoming "Person of the Year"...which is a big win, in and of itself.
No, "Person of the Year" means absolutely nothing. I recall one clear winner (Edward Snowden) being passed over for the award in favor of a more politically favorable candidate and that's just recent. Look back further and they've given out some absolutely asinine POTY awards.
Quote:
Incorrect. He is quite the opposite.
You need to look deeper.
You still seem to think that intelligence is so easily defined....
Intelligence looks less like a line-chart and more like this kind of chart:
Inline Image:
http://www.samedaysignstore.net/store/ProdImages/30035-lg.gifQuote:
He does exhibit certain narcissistic qualities...However, there is another part of his psychological makeup that keeps this in check.
No there isn't. He's a high functioning narcissist
Quote:
There's always that small slice of crazy in any group, which misrepresents the motivational psychology of the primary group.
Not the whole story. It's perfectly fine to judge a group by how they treat their crazies....which is in one area I think the right does better than the left. Trump has dis-avowed that neo-nazi guy who gave the presentation with the Hitler salute. The left so far has failed to do the same thing. When was the last time you heard any left wing public figure disavowing the feminist types who argue for anti-male genocide or mass-male sterilization with a transition to a breeding program that resembles the Mechwarrior clans(easily found on any feminist internet forum)? You won't. They largely condone and rationalize for them.
