You know which market analysts are most popular. Also you know which analysts who are mostly wrong the retail guys just can't stop talking about them. Incapable of moving on and never mentioning them again to newbies and causing them to draw others in.
The recipe for popularity and a following is very simple: be clear, speak stridently, be photogenic for video, don't talk complicated, don't use long words, don't show doubt, don't allow for uncertainty of events, SPEAK VISUALLY AND PICTORIALLY, BE DEFINITIVE, BE EMOTIVE. Show emotions, anger, pride, patriotism, passion, even cry into the camera. No matter how false, they always lap it up. Do that and they will love you in droves even if you are just reciting the alphabet.
For the people the truth MUST take certain forms - otherwise they just won't listen to it.
So that means their truth isn't the truth.
It rarely is.
I personally have no problems listening to intelligent people who have some Jupiter affliction denying them the "fame" they deserve on merit.
It would be ironic if Donald Trump is thinking the same thing as his critics, and not his base.
Scott AdamsVerified account @ScottAdamsSays
Trade wars are bad. Unless they are negotiations.
Trump to hire MSM Journalists As Part of Shake Up
The anti-establishment man is really courting the establishment.
If this is a Machiavellian move embracing the fake news media and the corrupt deep state, he really has brass balls.
At least the possible 37 year old pick to head the VA is a veteran.
As stated before, I think Trump knows there is no way to MAGA, as the life (manufacturing) was sucked out and sent overseas decades ago) but its a great rallying cry.
Need to extend and pretend. The west is toast, and he knows it. But he might be able to keep it breathing a little longer, even if it takes a ventilator.
Just because the bridge collapsed and killed 6 or more people,
is no reason not to celebrate the dieversity of the engineering team.
Nothing is as it seems!! Nope.
Wikileaks attacking the CIA and all the hidden agents-foreign and domestic-piercing CIA cyber weapons.
Department of Justice a separate pack of wolves, the militarized arm of the democratic party. But it goes higher. They have an agenda too.
Trump and CIA have been on good terms since the beginning. Pompeo was on Trump's short list months back. Tillerson was in his crosshairs long ago. It was already written.
Trump months back invoked states privilege to prevent CIA torture protocols from being released. Can't play out infront of the public or in a court. She tortured, they lied about the torture, it wasn't exactly as the press told you.
Whoever the CIA is and whatever their strategic agenda, Trump is on their side. The Justice Department is not.
The more you dig, the more murky it gets, roving gangs, big money.....
It's all dirty.
Go home, prepare food for your family, read bed time stories to your kids, nobody is looking out for your best interests.
Pull your curtains down, count your stack, and hug your family. And most importantly, BELIEVE NOTHING until otherwise told.
keep your friends close, but your enemies closer...or something like that. Trump and CIA?
Ruffian why would I want to leave my hometown it's such a beauty
now you know why immigrants love it here haha ...
GL, message received.
The one thing that I am finding missing in every narrative, especially now that Government types are blaming the design team, is that that bridge was designed to be a suspension bridge.
Generally speaking, due to liability issues, bridges are routinely overengineered, not under engineered.
There is supposed to be a tower supporting the cables, and another segment of bridge on the other side of the tower as a counterbalance. Neither of these pieces were ever in place.
That bridge segment never should have been put in place without its means of support in place first.
I can't explain the stupidity of this, other than that by leaving a bridge across a highway with absolutely none of the support that was designed into it, this is a criminal act by whoever allowed that bridge to be placed there, without any support.
Now, you know in my world, I always blame the government.
Well, just the fact that they are blaming the design team, with absolutely zero reporting of the fact that it was designed to be a suspension bridge, tells me that the government intended for this to happen.
Most of the YouTube videos are leaving out some really obvious facts, but at least this one shows what the finished bridge was supposed to look like.
Put your engineering, cap on, note the angle of the trusses on that span, and you will note that that was never meant to be a truss bridge.
Nobody is this stupid.
This is a criminal act, the government and the press as usual, are complicit in the cover-up.
Good morning everyone.
I'm having a lazy Sunday morning, and I never got to post a response to the Voxday Darkstream video that Argentus Maximus posted.
This time, I'll take the standard precaution, and compose it off-line, so it can't evaporate when I post it like it did last time.
I'm watching a man weigh the morality of different kinds of governance, and finally, coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing.
Ironically, I don't even think he realized it.
I don't think his reasoning for his advocacy for libertarianism was thoroughly thought out. Yes, in our current society, libertarianism can't happen, due to a culture that has been hopelessly indoctrinated to lean far left, so he gets to site a lack of public support as the reason libertarianism can't happen.
His thinking, is part of a process, which was actually explained by Larkin Rose who went as a child, from conservative, to libertarian, and eventually, to a full-blown anarchist, based solely on the morality of governance. In short, there's no such thing.
As I have often stated, and done so repeatedly, there is no such thing as "good governance”. Once you give a government rights that the rest of the people do not have, namely, using violence to enforce laws they get to makeup, as well as using violence to steal the money used to support itself,
Governments are inherently evil from the get-go.
Arguing for limited government, is arguing for limited evil. You still get evil in charge every time.
Even some of the founding fathers argued that government was a necessary evil, did anybody ever ask why evil is necessary?
I suppose that with his European indoctrination, such a concept never came to his conscious awareness.
This isn't a recent phenomenon, it goes back tens of thousands of years. The whole notion that human beings need to be governed started with religious indoctrination, with the aberrant teaching that human beings are inherently flawed, and that without governments, somehow, they would just run around and kill each other. Well as I have always argued, the exact opposite is true.
Out of the many attributes that I have always assigned to the western imaginary sky daddy, let's just focus on genocidal.
You can't have a decent genocide, without governments, which ultimately, is the only reason they are required, and exist.
As for twisted irony, they use genocide to legitimatize a need for governance, when they are the only possible mechanism for instituting a genocide in the first place. This is ultimately acts of pure evil being used to perpetuate the perceived need for pure evil.
Now back to the video.
Our deep thinking philosopher of the day, seems to be assuming that governments are required for some reason.
I noticed this many years ago studying Lao Tzu’s Tao Di Ching, a 2500-year-old manuscript. In it, the legitimacy of governance is never questioned, and a good deal of that manuscript is focused primarily on "Good governance” namely, "he who governs least governs best”. Ultimately, I think that is the core belief in libertarian philosophy.
This ignores one basic truth. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By definition, governance is absolute power.
So while the Vox guy finally concludes that his views are too idealistic to ever be implemented, he doesn't even consider just how far short he falls.
If you're going to be idealistic, it takes a lot of imagination, and a fairly decent moral code.
Admittedly, I am far more idealistic than he is.
He completely misses one of my favorite arguments against libertarianism, which is that a little government’s only function, is to grow up and become a big government.
Once a government has been established, it will invariably grow in size and scope until it destroys the very society that established it.
Note that I am speaking in absolutes, historically speaking, there are no exceptions.
Any example I can find of societies that lived as truly free people, were ultimately destroyed by either their own government, or another government sanctioned invasion force. Genocide is always the governmental solution to a free society.
A governments only true function is to implement and maintain human enslavement.
So, he concludes that mankind is completely screwed, and most likely due to a religious indoctrination, although he could be completely nonreligious, like most people, he can't comprehend a society without megalomaniacal, psychopathic, completely parasitic and genocidal overlords.
This usually requires a religious background.
This is the result of thousands of years of indoctrination, making basic truth and basic reality so obscured, and so incomprehensible, it can't even enter his thought processes on the very topic he is contemplating.
I can only assume that any movement ever started in Europe based on a voluntary society has been met with immediate extermination throughout recorded history. There aren't any examples that can be cited.
In the course of my discussions on this topic with Green Lantern, as he took the Libertarian perspective, I became dreadfully aware of just how incredibly ingrained in human consciousness is the assumption that governments are required.
Even when trying to take this from the basic perspective of causality, and the original cause of human enslavement, just agreeing on terminology, and basic concepts, was extraordinarily problematic. It's almost as if the language itself has been geared towards making such conversations virtually impossible.
It is still possible, but you need to be well versed in the origins of words, like Latin for example, which “coincidentally", is a dead language now.
In conclusion, I credit the Vox guy with concluding that his ideology was too idealistic, but if you're going to be idealistic, why not go for something that would actually work, instead of being idealistic about something that could never work.
To me, this points to the death of imagination, and the failure of what's left of humanity to even contemplate a viable solution anymore.
Yes, I will admit I am being idealistic, but at least my solutions would actually work. They are the only ones on the table that actually would.
I think libertarianism as a concept, is a last-ditch fallback position of an evil empire that would not be able to function without governance.
Once you have convinced a society that for some reason, governance is required, if they actually break free of the control grid, they will always organize a "limited government”, which puts in place all of the necessary ingredients for a full-blown totalitarian dictatorship over time.
The Vox guy has no concepts on principles. He started citing examples where individual liberty won't work, such as in a family unit,
and then discusses how a small community is just an extension of that family unit. He fucked up on the basic family unit premise.
Even in a family, individual liberty and responsibility needs to be paramount, even with children. It is the only possible way to raise a responsible adult.
He can't even scale down the basic principles that would work, and apparently, almost nobody can.
This is one of the reasons I argue that principles are required, and they need to come first. Without them, there's nothing to work off.
Once you start making excuses for why individual liberty can't be paramount, you've already lost the ability to create a civilized society.
I consider this an excellent example of how humanity has been so mindfucked, it can't comprehend a solution anymore.
I just thought it would be worthwhile giving my take on it.
There you go.
Something is soooo desperately wrong with that FL bridge scene. Speaking from an engineers standpoint – its just plain inconceivable, so much so that My gut reaction was that this must be a false flag. You see, bridge technology is ancient and established, so much so that you don’t have to be an engineer. There are books on the subject – Just pick a span and a load and then pick from well-proven designs – its frkn been done 10,000 times before. There’s nothing new.
You don’t need to be an engineer to design your garage. You need trusses. It’s a sophomore course in engineering. Just pick your span and your choice of materials. Its been done a million times – NO design required.
You don’t even need that. Just get a CAD program for your computer. It designs the thing for you with all the "over –build", built-in to meet every existing safety requirement.
Now, in NYS, IF you wanna build a bridge over anything, most especially a road~!, You are gonna be inspected by City, County, State, AND Federal inspectors, AND they are gonna be On-Site everyday and they are gonna be at your 7AM daily planning meetings so that they know ex-zactly where the activity for the day is gonna be, and they have to sign-off on every stage – NOT just at the end when all or most of the construction is already in place.
There is soooo much wrong with this picture, I don’t know where to start. First of all I would arrest the inspectors, and hold them w/o bail, on charges of murder, first degree. Or better yet, hang 'em all and then start the investigation. Five less Gov employees is justification enough all by itself.