Yes, obviously he should lose his professorship in the English department of the small liberal arts college he works at.
Oops, I thought for a moment he was in a position where credentials are everything and accomplishments mean nothing. Never mind.
And if someone who has created as much wealth as he has (not just for him, but for a huge number of people) and advanced useful technologies at such an astonishing pace was an illegal alien that says an awful lot about our immigration laws, doesn't it?
Thank you, Lazy. I can always count on you to point out just how horribly wrong is anything I post.
Yes, obviously he should lose his professorship in the English department of the small liberal arts college he works at.
Oops, I thought for a moment he was in a position where credentials are everything and accomplishments mean nothing. Never mind.
And if someone who has created as much wealth as he has (not just for him, but for a huge number of people) and advanced useful technologies at such an astonishing pace was an illegal alien that says an awful lot about our immigration laws, doesn't it?
For all the good he has done (mostly buying the right companies and financing the right technologies) I'm seriously surprised he has the time/energy/inclination to still be a giant douchebag. Creating a lot of wealth doesn't mean you are a good person. In fact there is some evidence to the contrary depending on the methods.
Yes, obviously he should lose his professorship in the English department of the small liberal arts college he works at.
Oops, I thought for a moment he was in a position where credentials are everything and accomplishments mean nothing. Never mind.
And if someone who has created as much wealth as he has (not just for him, but for a huge number of people) and advanced useful technologies at such an astonishing pace was an illegal alien that says an awful lot about our immigration laws, doesn't it?
If we can agree that one of the major definitions of fascism is a government / corporate relationship design to promote both and censor opposition to both, ......
No, we cannot agree. Fascism is fascism. It is well defined.
Many regimes practice censorship. They are not fascist.
Many pro-American authoritarian regimes abuse human rights and torture their citizens. They are not fascist.
Americans spend considerable energy and effort misleading, lying to and manipulating their fellow citizens. Think of it as similar to censorship. These Americans are not fascist.
You did not offer up what you say is your well defined definition of what fascism is.
orFascism:a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
Here let me edit the above definition taken from a very highly credible source.
Fascism:a way of organizing a society in which a government controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.
So how is this much different from what I said above ?
fascism is a government / corporate relationship design(ed) to promote both (the government / corporate relationship) and censor opposition to both (the government / corporate relationship),
Edit: and some more. What we are seeing exposed with Twitter is a direct partnership with the government which is controlled by the party in power and exists broadly across social media and to a lesser extent the Legacy Media. These media outlets are also controlled by the party currently in power. Direct contact from government entities to these outlets directing what policy to implement and who to apply it, removing opposition views and participants from these platforms and by name in some cases, is drastically altering perceptions and modifying the behaviour of their subscribers by way of this manipulation. The goal of the party in power is to silence any and all opposition to it. And it has succeeded brilliantly until now.
This cabal, for a lack of something else to call it, has everyone's personal data and knows you better than you know yourself. Programs simply direct the easiest path to their target(s) thinking and perception. It is all very circular in structure. Rumors planted, then quoted. Once quoted these rumors become credible and real by never again referring back to their origin. The new quote becomes the credited source because it now has a reference for "authenticity" because it already existed somewhere else, regardless of truth or not. And out it goes into news feeds and into peoples minds providing food to reinforce an ingrained and indoctrinated confirmation bias.
I don't know what you call this but it is an example of how fascism operates in the present real world. This is global, not just local. Twitter evidently was the weakest link in their chain and has been seized away from them and in the process verifiable access to documents and communications which clearly establish the allegations I made above. Also we can establish that corporate officers lied many times to Congress under oath. One example is Dorsey outright denying that shadow banning existed in any form, under oath. That is now an established and verifiable lie. Nothing to see here, IKR ...
If we can agree that one of the major definitions of fascism is a government / corporate relationship design to promote both and censor opposition to both,
......
No, we cannot agree. Fascism is fascism. It is well defined.
Many regimes practice censorship. They are not fascist.
Many pro-American authoritarian regimes abuse human rights and torture their citizens. They are not fascist.
Americans spend considerable energy and effort misleading, lying to and manipulating their fellow citizens. Think of it as similar to censorship. These Americans are not fascist.
the Twitter relationship with our government being exposed by Musk meets this definition.
Musk is proving himself to be a wildly-swinging troublemaker, not someone with a 3D chess view of society and politics. All he has going for him is a lot of money and a techbro fan base who want a not-the-establishment hero. They picked the wrong guy (again).
If we can agree that one of the major definitions of fascism is a government / corporate relationship design to promote both and censor opposition to both,
then by this definition, the Twitter relationship with our government being exposed by Musk meets this definition.
Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.
Glad to have left Twitter, but regretting that I didn't keep my accounts open. Some kid wanted my handle and I told him that I've had that four-letter name for forty years, sorry. Now that I've closed the account he could swoop right in and take it - but I still would rather he didn't. Would tarnish my brand!
IIRC one of the sources I cited used "prove" instead of "corroborate." If the latter verb is more accurate, it shows that the FBI was setting a lower bar of evidence for Steele to meet in order to collect $1 million.
Steele provided no evidence to back up the dossier rumors and refused to name sources. If Steele was such a Clinton ally, don't you think he would have given *some* info just to score $1 million and screw Trump over? For that matter, why wouldn't Steele just *say* the dossier details were accurate and get the benefits, as you claim the FBI offered? Either Steele is a real mensch or you're peddling BS rumors again.
Love your cited source of uncorroborated "info" on Gllliar, Blitznet.com. A shame no one had the stones to put their name on the byline. Too bad that one Gilliar email proposed one distribution of profits for a deal that NEVER HAPPENED and never mentioned Joe Biden by name.
You want to see corruption exposed? Just start reading about Trump's criminal behavior before, during and after his POTUS stint.
Kurt, The FBI offered Steele $1 million to PROVE the rumors in his dossier.
They did not offer him the money to just to "say the dossier was true and correct", as you claim. According to Newsweek, the FBI as part of its standard and open practices does offer money to informants. According to CNN and Fox News, FBI supervisory counterintelligence analyst Brian Auten testified during the Danchenko trial that Steele refused to tell the FBI the names of his sources and could not corroborate the dossier's rumors. Steele never received the money. Per Fox News, "During questioning by Special Counsel John Durham on Tuesday, Auten said that during those meetings the FBI offered Steele $1 million if he could corroborate allegations in the dossier." If John Durham thought it was relevant to learn the names of the agent/s who offered money to Steele to corroborate the dossier's claims, he could have pressed Auten for those names in open court. As Newsweek points out, the Steele dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page. Two of those warrants were later deemed invalid. Fox News reports that Judge Raymond Dearie, proposed by Trump's lawyers and appointed as Special Master to examine the documents retrieved by the FBI from Mar A Lago, was on the FISA court and signed the final search warrant. It would be pretty damned odd for Trump's lawyers to put forth Dearie as one of their two proposed choices for the Special Master job if they thought he had done something shady or biased when he signed that warrant to watch Page, a Trump campaign advisor. As CNN reports, however, the FBI's investigation into possible dealings between the Trump campaign and Russians was already underway by the time of the FBI''s applications for warrants to surveil Page. The dossier was not the original cause of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11...https://www.foxnews.com/politi...https://www.newsweek.com/fact-... "Oh, one last question, asking for a friend ... You're ok with the "ten percent for the big guy" ? Nothing to see there ?"
I'm thinking you smoke a lot of weed and/or sniff glue and live in a dreamworld for half the day. From the Washington Post:
“One of these deals involves the sale of American natural gas to China. Evidence suggests Joe Biden had a 10 percent equity stake through his son.”
— Rep. James Comer (R-KY), at the news conference
The phrase “evidence suggests” is doing a lot of work here. Comer is referring to a single email — dated May 13, 2017 — whose meaning has been under dispute. In the hard-drive copy of the laptop obtained by The Washington Post, the email lacked digital information that allowed it to be verified.
The Washington Post, in its reporting, cites only materials from the laptop that the security experts were able to verify or can be confirmed elsewhere. Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, in his 2021 book “The Bidens,” said the email had been verified as authentic by “a person with independent access to Hunter’s emails.”
The 2017 email described possible ownership stakes for five partners, including Hunter Biden and his uncle Jim Biden, in a planned venture with CEFC, the Chinese company. The entity was to be called Oneida Holdings LLC.
James Gilliar, a business associate summarizing the allocation of the equity in Oneida Holdings LLC., in the email, wrote how four partners would get 20 percent each, except for Jim Biden, who would get 10 percent. He added a question: “10 held by H for the big guy?” One of the recipients of the mail, Anthony Bobulinski, has said that the “big guy” referred to Joe Biden and that “H” referred to Hunter. Bobulinski was a guest of Trump at one of the 2020 presidential debates.
But Gilliar told the Wall Street Journal in 2020: “I would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.”
Three days after the email was sent, a draft agreement setting up Oneida was circulated. It shows each partner would receive 20 percent, including Jim Biden. No mention is made of Joe Biden. The company agreement signed on May 22, 2017, had the same allocation. Oneida was to hold 50 percent of another corporate entity called SinoHawk. Neither Gilliar nor James Biden responded to requests for comment.
Ah, word games !
So could you once again explain the difference between "say the dossier was true and correct" and "if he could corroborate allegations in the dossier" ?
You said, "The FBI offered Steele $1 million to PROVE the rumors in his dossier". In most parts of the real world, corroborate does not mean or is equal to prove. All that corroborate means is confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
Doesn't sound much different from "say the dossier was true and correct" to me.
You may want to look further into Mr James Gilliar, whom you cited above. Here's a starting point for you.
James Gilliar, Joe Biden’s handler of dirty cash I have listened to Anthony Bobulinski at length discussing this stuff. One of his main points of how Biden protects his hindside is with the use of plausible deniability as a tactic to downplay any appearances of wrong doings. By now we can probably agree, or not, that one of Biden's biggest whoppers is that he has never discussed any business dealings with Hunter. Never, ever, ever, he has said repeatedly. I suppose that you believe Joe when he says that though. I remember you saying long ago that Biden has already been thoroughly investigated and that there is nothing to see. That he is essentially squeaky clean, right ?
The gifs are for amusement and visual summation. I am very sorry that they frighten you so much. Would this be safer for you?
Courage, diddums!
"Just one little thingy we did learn from Durham that has not led to an indictment but is mighty important in the big picture is that the FBI tried to get Christopher Steele to take $1 million and say that his dossier was true and correct. That deal fell through. Were you aware of this ?"
You almost always get it wrong. Such a talent. This matter was reported in the "mainstream press" on the day or day after it came out during Durham's prosecution of Danchenko. HOWEVER:
The FBI offered Steele $1 million to PROVE the rumors in his dossier. They did not offer him the money to just to "say the dossier was true and correct", as you claim.
According to Newsweek, the FBI as part of its standard and open practices does offer money to informants. According to CNN and Fox News, FBI supervisory counterintelligence analyst Brian Auten testified during the Danchenko trial that Steele refused to tell the FBI the names of his sources and could not corroborate the dossier's rumors. Steele never received the money. Per Fox News, "During questioning by Special Counsel John Durham on Tuesday, Auten said that during those meetings the FBI offered Steele $1 million if he could corroborate allegations in the dossier."
If John Durham thought it was relevant to learn the names of the agent/s who offered money to Steele to corroborate the dossier's claims, he could have pressed Auten for those names in open court.
As Newsweek points out, the Steele dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page. Two of those warrants were later deemed invalid. Fox News reports that Judge Raymond Dearie, proposed by Trump's lawyers and appointed as Special Master to examine the documents retrieved by the FBI from Mar A Lago, was on the FISA court and signed the final search warrant. It would be pretty damned odd for Trump's lawyers to put forth Dearie as one of their two proposed choices for the Special Master job if they thought he had done something shady or biased when he signed that warrant to watch Page, a Trump campaign advisor.
As CNN reports, however, the FBI's investigation into possible dealings between the Trump campaign and Russians was already underway by the time of the FBI''s applications for warrants to surveil Page. The dossier was not the original cause of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign.
âOne of these deals involves the sale of American natural gas to China. Evidence suggests Joe Biden had a 10 percent equity stake through his son.â
â Rep. James Comer (R-KY), at the news conference
The phrase âevidence suggestsâ is doing a lot of work here. Comer is referring to a single email â dated May 13, 2017 â whose meaning has been under dispute. In the hard-drive copy of the laptop obtained by The Washington Post, the email lacked digital information that allowed it to be verified.
The Washington Post, in its reporting, cites only materials from the laptop that the security experts were able to verify or can be confirmed elsewhere. Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, in his 2021 book âThe Bidens,â said the email had been verified as authentic by âa person with independent access to Hunterâs emails.â
The 2017 email described possible ownership stakes for five partners, including Hunter Biden and his uncle Jim Biden, in a planned venture with CEFC, the Chinese company. The entity was to be called Oneida Holdings LLC.
James Gilliar, a business associate summarizing the allocation of the equity in Oneida Holdings LLC., in the email, wrote how four partners would get 20 percent each, except for Jim Biden, who would get 10 percent. He added a question: â10 held by H for the big guy?â One of the recipients of the mail, Anthony Bobulinski, has said that the âbig guyâ referred to Joe Biden and that âHâ referred to Hunter. Bobulinski was a guest of Trump at one of the 2020 presidential debates.
But Gilliar told the Wall Street Journal in 2020: âI would like to clear up any speculation that former Vice President Biden was involved with the 2017 discussions about our potential business structure. I am unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president. The activity in question never delivered any project revenue.â
Three days after the email was sent, a draft agreement setting up Oneida was circulated. It shows each partner would receive 20 percent, including Jim Biden. No mention is made of Joe Biden. The company agreement signed on May 22, 2017, had the same allocation. Oneida was to hold 50 percent of another corporate entity called SinoHawk. Neither Gilliar nor James Biden responded to requests for comment.
It is going to be real hard for a lot of people when they find out that the real conspiracy is that there is no other conspiracy theory other than the one telling them to think that there is.
