Benjamin Cole Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 On 1/17/2023 at 7:33 AM, Chris Barnard said: This is quite funny. And--is the the modern Donks? They like the national security state. It makes them feel secure...and can be weaponized against political enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 On 1/16/2023 at 7:51 PM, Pat Speer said: I agree there must be oversight. But I don't think members of congress, for example, should be given access to the names of informants, or even to how intelligence was gathered, unless there is a pressing reason for their needing this information. I think a certain amount of compartmentalization is in order, even in regards the President. I don't know but I would hope the President's daily brief is generalized i.e. "Our sources tell us blah blah blah" as opposed to going into specifics. In the case of Trump, providing him with specifics would have been akin to sending an email to Putin, IMO. I tend to agree with you but it's a problem when IG's are toothless and the DOJ has no effective recourse. The agencies have crocheted a blanket of administrative evasions that essentially puts at arm's length any possible oversight functions Congress may employ. They have metastasized into a fourth rail of Government that can alternately choose to use the Constitution as a cudgel or sidestep it as needed. Theoretically the appointee position at the top has authority to reign the agencies in but in reality the deputy under them has the bureaucratic moves to counter and intimidate them. Ask Patraeus. Especially in the Intel agencies the deputies are the real power. IMO they saved us from the former President's worst instincts (I thought the bureaucrats would when he was elected) but those sorts of machinations can work the other way also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 12 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: This is quite funny. And--is the the modern Donks? They like the national security state. It makes them feel secure...and can be weaponized against political enemies? It was perhaps a little too subtle. Everyone knows the film but, it’s analogous to the society that many of us live in, particularly employee’s. There is a very real truth when it comes to trust in government, its the only thing most people know. The very idea that you can’t trust them is immensely destabilising, to the point that people would rather embrace a lie, than an uncomfortable truth or reality. We are very heavily conditioned to be this obeying creature. Lance just pointed out that he has spent most of his career working in certain framework, then he is a product of that and its belief system. If you don’t believe in it, you can’t reconcile doing the work. That’s his comfort zone, and it paid the bills, who can blame him? I think a vast swathe of the population are institutionalised, which is why the film resonates with so many people. A guy is stuck somewhere he doesn’t want to be and escapes the mundane existence. It may as well be a guy who is doing a job he hates but, has to because he must pay the bills. Joe Rogan explains it (partly). https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmPCp47OgCI/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= Some carry hope, and always have an eye on escape. Most give up and instead justify their position in the minds to make it bearable. The more the existence pays dividends, the more you might sing its praises and defend it, regardless of any morality or idealogical beliefs. Most people are perhaps not conscious of it. Life is a funny old thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 18, 2023 Share Posted January 18, 2023 12 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: It was perhaps a little too subtle. Everyone knows the film but, it’s analogous to the society that many of us live in, particularly employee’s. There is a very real truth when it comes to trust in government, its the only thing most people know. The very idea that you can’t trust them is immensely destabilising, to the point that people would rather embrace a lie, than an uncomfortable truth or reality. We are very heavily conditioned to be this obeying creature. Lance just pointed out that he has spent most of his career working in certain framework, then he is a product of that and its belief system. If you don’t believe in it, you can’t reconcile doing the work. That’s his comfort zone, and it paid the bills, who can blame him? I think a vast swathe of the population are institutionalised, which is why the film resonates with so many people. A guy is stuck somewhere he doesn’t want to be and escapes the mundane existence. It may as well be a guy who is doing a job he hates but, has to because he must pay the bills. Joe Rogan explains it (partly). https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmPCp47OgCI/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= Some carry hope, and always have an eye on escape. Most give up and instead justify their position in the minds to make it bearable. The more the existence pays dividends, the more you might sing its praises and defend it, regardless of any morality or idealogical beliefs. Most people are perhaps not conscious of it. Life is a funny old thing. I confess, I feel a need for the security blanket too. When I converse with others, and point out no one would attack the US if it had five aircraft carrier strike forces instead of 11, so why not five... Intellectually, I know that is true. But something tugs at me. Those aircraft carrier groups are keeping citizens safe, along with Big Brother.... As modernity strips off religion and geographical community, people are grasping for comfort. I understand, I feel the same way. I want Big Brother. Like the guy in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Tucker mentions Nixon "Who Shot John" and goes into CIA connections with WaterGate Bunglers and Bob Woodward. Starts 4min in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 13 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said: Tucker mentions Nixon "Who Shot John" and goes into CIA connections with WaterGate Bunglers and Bob Woodward. Starts 4min in Jaw drops .... He is really going for it lately. Poking the bear. I should add regarding the linguistics Nixon chooses in the recorded audio, that he did in fact refer to President Kennedy as “John”, it was a regular thing for him. He did also refer to him as Jack. If he’d meant “who hit John” or “who struck John”, he may well have used those words IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 (edited) On 1/18/2023 at 8:22 AM, Benjamin Cole said: I confess, I feel a need for the security blanket too. When I converse with others, and point out no one would attack the US if it had five aircraft carrier strike forces instead of 11, so why not five... Intellectually, I know that is true. But something tugs at me. Those aircraft carrier groups are keeping citizens safe, along with Big Brother.... As modernity strips off religion and geographical community, people are grasping for comfort. I understand, I feel the same way. I want Big Brother. Like the guy in the movie. I understand you, Ben. Regarding the security blanket; at which point would you say that it becomes analogous to the housewife who is beaten black and blue by her abusive husband on a daily basis but, still fears being alone in the world more, or doesn’t think she can do better? Edited January 20, 2023 by Chris Barnard Added the word “point”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 37 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: Regarding the security blanket; at which would you say that it becomes analogous to the housewife who is beaten black and blue by her abusive husband on a daily basis but, still fears being alone in the world more, or doesn’t think she can do better? My own mother...to a "T." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said: My own mother...to a "T." I should have read that back in terms of spelling and grammar. I am sorry to hear that, Joe. Tyranny is awful, no matter how it manifests itself. I am certain she was a wonderful woman, as your kindness, compassion and slow to temper nature, sets a great example here. It comes from somewhere. You should never seek to destroy a partner or do anything that diminishes their confidence. As you lose everything that you were attracted to in the first place. Throughout nature, almost every creature flourishes when free, and is a shadow of itself in captivity. Edited January 20, 2023 by Chris Barnard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 35 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: Jaw drops .... He is really going for it lately. Poking the bear. I should add regarding the linguistics Nixon chooses in the recorded audio, that he did in fact refer to President Kennedy as “John”, it was a regular thing for him. He did also refer to him as Jack. If he’d meant “who hit John” or “who struck John”, he may well have used those words IMO. Haldeman in his book mentions how Nixon had him tell Richard >>> about "..the whole bay of pigs thing" that when he mentioned that phrase Helms hit the roof and became very hostile and said that the BOP wasn't a CIA operation! Which is rather odd considering that it was, So Haldeman surmised that it was a code for the JFK assassination. So I lean toward that Nixon was probably using it as a double meaning that he could easily deny if he was ever asked about it in detail.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said: Haldeman in his book mentions how Nixon had him tell Richard >>> about "..the whole bay of pigs thing" that when he mentioned that phrase Helms hit the roof and became very hostile and said that the BOP wasn't a CIA operation! Which is rather odd considering that it was, So Haldeman surmised that it was a code for the JFK assassination. So I lean toward that Nixon was probably using it as a double meaning that he could easily deny if he was ever asked about it in detail.. Yes - I agree - puns, innuendo and double-entendre’s are a politicians game. Edited January 20, 2023 by Chris Barnard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Double-entrendres" Nixon..."you know LBJ... he never likes to be number 2." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: My own mother...to a "T." Joe B-- We disagree on many political points, and that is fine. I am saddened to read about your family life. Good luck, and let us all do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now