mvingon

Idk, but I did read where his... Whatever *giggle* referred to Jerusalem as *Israel's* eternal capital. Holy smokes, when USA and UK collude to create a quagmire, they really do a superb job, of it. In this case, carving up the levantine and handing it over to a different ethnic group than had been there in ages! In before: the Israelis were there FIRST! No, they actually weren't, even if one uses the Talmud or Bible as "history."

Thanks everyone, especially Kar3n. You're right, I didn't see the insults and name calling, in those threads. My b, thanks again.

Several posts back, I stated my methodology, so not going to beat the dead horse. Thanks for your reply.

I'll pass. I actually enjoyed the posts I've read, that you're calling "shit shows." Could communications styles be part of the issue? Terse works for me, although I've learned to explain myself, as most North Americans don't seem to appreciate it, and assume I'm being rude. I'm not, I've just found the less words I use, the less words people can trip over, but gees, people can get offended, if you don't give them plenty to trip over and get hung up.

Atherous: please do tell, because I've had quite an opposite experience. What is your methodology for researching news from Breitbart or Jones? Mine was, when I gave such sources any credibility at all, was dig down deep into several pages of webcrawlers. Google actually isn't even my preferred search engine, anymore, it's changed so much, but I will use it, when it suits my needs. Other search engines do just fine, and often includes items Google hides. I paid attention to Jones, Drudge, Breitbart for about a decade, then finally stopped wasting my time. It's sad, too. Jones can take a shred of truth and twist it and let his imagination run rampant, which is fine, if you're claiming fiction as fiction, not so much when fiction is presented as fact.

Yes. And remembering your logic video, the percentage chance of credible news coming from a credible source is much higher than it coming from Alex Jones or Breitbart. Or as the old adage goes, "Even a broken clock is right, twice a day."

Proof? Just this morning, from a credible news source, Obama was saying, as well as some states elections boards, that there is definite evidence that Russia was involved in hacking the vote. Interestingly, some IP addresses belonged to dhs? CIA? I don't remember. Note there are possibilities for the domestic IP addresses showing up in access logs: 1. There were domestic state actors, 2. IP/MAC addresses are supposedly easy to spoof, from my limited understanding, 3. If security was breached, by domestic or foreign actors, and said across were remotely accessing said machines, then naturally those addresses would show up. I'm sorry, but I have limited posts, and I'm simply not going to waste any more on outrageous claims without legitimate proof. This is quantifiable, qualifiable, falsifiable data, here, not esoteric studies, so again, you're making the claims, without one iota of verifiable proof. Now I'm not stupid, our government lies to us all the time, but you're going to have to do better than "proof" from Alex Jones or some other "alt-right" (henceforth I'll call it what it is, white male supremacy) before I waste anymore time on such nonsense. I don't mean to be rude, but holy smokes, enough is enough, and with things that are testable, in the logical realm, I intend to keep my energy, sanity, and limited posts for things that are important to me, rather than trying to convince the willfully blind.

You're making the claim, and it is not widely recognized as a common reality. Therefore, proof?

Ralis, you'd be surprised how many Nam vets I know, who don't seem to even remember My Lai, perhaps it's the brain self-defense mechanism of blocking out painful memories. May I suggest it seems you're wasting precious energy here; no point talking to the deaf, signing to the blind, asking answers from the mute. Sorry, it is what it is. At any rate, it seems frustrating. I gave up trying to have this conversation with people in real life. I mean, here, at least, when people consider Alex Jones, Breitbart, Sean Hannity real news, Facebook fake news real news, and credible news sources fake news, do you really think facts are going to make one whit of difference? I've yet to see a post mentioning China's recent reiteration of the one-China policy, and another Chinese news outlet calling to bring Taiwan under submission, by force. Yet it was all over the headlines, just my morning, today. My heart quakes at the implications for the Taiwanese people, but perhaps they view it less ominously, than I do. I'd like to ask awaken's thoughts, but I'm not sure this is a topic she'd like to discuss. So I will say, if awaken is interested in sharing her thoughts, if sincerely appreciate her perspective. Maybe you and I view it differently than actual residents of Taiwan? I don't know. I'm really glad I have access to the Guardian and Independent, der Spiegel, DW, and other news outlets. I'm not sure what I'd think, if I had to rely on Fox, CNN, NYT, etc. Not saying those organizations don't have some columnists who get it right, but they mostly abdicated journalistic integrity under G.W. Even CBS fired Dan Rather, for telling the truth about Iraq/WMD. I'm wondering if anyone in this thread had given real politik, geopolitics, and indeed, politics, in general a serious, if even cursory, study. Putin knows real politik and geopolitics well. I'm getting familiar. Trump, I think, is Putin's useful idiot. I'm sure this post will offend many, and if it does, I would urge you to research my words, before attacking the content of my post. Attack me ask you want, I don't care. But do some research from credible news sources, either way, please.

Ralis: you're not in denial, like a lot of vets. That's a good thing. Reality may stink, but it is what it is. My first thoughts (but I'd reached my quota) about not pointing out individual posts, was, "Because everyone here can sort that for themselves." And they can. But willful obtuseness is what it is, and those who are into that aren't about to get their heads out of the sand, and see. They search for confirmation bias. Myself, if someone makes a claim that isn't obviously bogus, but also doesn't coincide with my personal perceptions, I will Google his claim, and look for confirmation or denial. That's the only way I, personally, have ever learned anything. If someone agrees with me, well, there's not much reason to seek. But also, that's the moderators' jobs. I must admit, it confuses me that one member was suspended for pushing a point, but other members seem to be able to push points, ride roughshod with personal attacks, and push points without any validation of their points, whatsoever, but again, I'm not a mod, have no desire to be a mod, and am not yet accustomed to the norms here. Just saying it seems odd, to me.

I... I'm just stunned, by some of the posts, here. In primary or secondary school, most American students over the age of 30 should have received some sort of instruction on identifying credible news sources, which, since the media has been propaganda for decades, is a little more difficult now. But it's still pretty easy to Google for confirmation, fact checking. For instance, if one goggles "Obama right of Reagan," there are innumerable sources, fact checks, for that term. Sane with "trickle down economics," etcetera. I'll point out the burden of proof is on the claimant, UNLESS a stated view is held as a common reality, by most. I'll also add that extraordinary claims, like "pizzagate" require extraordinary proof. Wiki has an excellent article, debunking satanic ritual abuse. Not saying some sickos don't make up an excuse that creates what they think is plausible deniability, but that doesn't make it real. The devil doesn't make anyone do anything. That's either our own organic or circumstantial deviations from the norm. Also, there is a difference between "normative" and "normal." For example, in my region, substance abuse is normative, but by no stretch of the imagination is considered normal, except by the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Also, correlation does not imply causation. It can, but doesn't always. Finally, the singular of data is not anecdote. Anecdotal evidence can be used as a starting point, if there are enough in common with multiple anecdotes from various sources. I'm sorry if this post offends anyone. My intent is only to help clear up common misperceptions.

Monkey see, monkey do, eh? Honestly, if most Americans had any idea what the government does, in our names, with taxpayer dollars, in order to toss us cheap crap, in lieu of actual liberty, there may have been a revolt before the Spanish-American war. It amuses me that a coveted journalistic prize was named after Pulitzer. Wiki can tell you more about that. And I've used up my posting quota for a while. OT: what time zone is default for this forum? Thanks.

Yes, I tend towards skepticism, but that's okay. I have an open closed mind. I know that doesn't make any sense, I'll just say I've experienced logically inexplicable things that still blow my mind, years later. I think what I mean is, just because something hasn't yet been falsifiable, quantifiable, or qualifiable, doesn't mean it always will be. Not so long ago, quantum physics, computing, etcetera were thought impossible. The sci-fi of today may well be the science of the future. The light/slit experiments are STILL blowing my mind. I'm leaning towards cold fusion is possible, we just haven't (okay, people far more intelligent than myself, not "we") haven't worked out the how, yet.

Interesting. I was wondering if the alchemists meant base nature = lead, higher vibrational nature = gold. I made up those terms, so they're probably wrong.

Yes. Ganesh appeared to me, once, in a dream. It was over twenty years ago, but I'll never forget it. I was under the strong impression that wealth isn't necessarily material things. Please PM me, if you would know more.

It seems to me there is a cosmic consciousness, some call it the Akashic records. Like most things, it send to contain positive and negative/good and bad, or whatever labels you want to apply, to that information. I try to see labels as tools, not actual definitions, which are fluid, after all. Perhaps the term "raw data," works best, for me. Be careful messing around, the ego can get hyperinflated,... Good and bad, positive and negative don't seem separate, to me, rather like one magnet, two poles, or positive and negative electrical charges, etc. Have you checked out the Golden Dawn system? It's brand new to me, and I'm not so interested in that actual practice (I may be at some point, but later on, I *think* I'd like to try Taoist alchemy, or simple cultivation, not to live forever, just to live more in tune with the ebb and flow of life tides), but I definitely think the theory has something for me. I recently found a book I'd downloaded, years ago, and started reading it. I'm just in the first chapter, so take it with a kilo of salt: The Complete Golden Dawn System, by Israel Regardie. Good luck.

C-ptsd, fibromyalgia person, looking for ways to cope. I know a little about the TTC, and so far, that's about the best relief I've found. I'm having a hard time doing any meditations, because my head won't shut up, for very long. Can someone please recommend a simple meditation for beginners who aren't able to move much, sometimes? Thank you.

Thank you. That's probably all I can manage, right now, anyway. Pretty busy with life, right now, but I'll be back, as I can.