blacklisted politics 101

[Order of Nine]

1 hour ago, classicrawker said:

Boy you know how to pick them mate

He was expelled from the House after being convicted of taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering and forcing his aides to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and houseboat in Washington, D.C. He was sentenced to prison and released on September 2, 2009, after serving a seven-year sentence.

A politician that was trying to help us break free from the fed reserve went to prison? Noooooo wayyy?! That would never happen.

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

There's MILLIONS of put options placed on THOUSANDS of businesses/stocks.....EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 

Yep. And I said look at the businesses that are affected by big MSM events.. 

Sorry to see that you missed the point there. Try again..

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

A politician that was trying to help us break free from the fed reserve went to prison? Noooooo wayyy?! That would never happen.

Yep. And I said look at the businesses that are affected by big MSM events.. 

Sorry to see that you missed the point there. Try again..

Of course there will be businesses affected by the MSM mixed in with the other thousands of businesses that people place put options on.  What about the rest (probably the majority of them) of the businesses that people placed put options on that were not affected by the MSM?  

[SoulMonster]

In my dabbling with swing trading I have considered put options any times. Doesn't mean anything. Don't follow my money!

[Order of Nine]

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Of course there will be businesses affected by the MSM mixed in with the other thousands of businesses that people place put options on.  What about the rest (probably the majority of them) of the businesses that people placed put options on that were not affected by the MSM?  

I need to clarify, this seems like you missed my point. Example, following put options on businesses that have direct contact with an event, such as the MGM/Mandalay bay last October. 

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know why you don't seem to grasp the point that I won't be watching any videos you show me. A video of some dude saying something is NOT going to convince me in either direction. You have to show me EVIDENCE. And more than anecdotal evidence from whatever dude who has had the honor of getting his ramblings documented for eternity Youtube.

The fact that you constantly fail to substantiate any of your outrageous claims, yet again and again point to the videotaped opinions of like-minded fellows, is a strong indication that you have nothing else. You don't have proper evidence. You have a strong conviction that is repeatedly re-confirmed by listening to other conspiracy theorists, in Internet echo chambers, and between yourselves you share a few documents and facts that in your already predetermined minds are sufficient evidence to discard much more plausible explanations that are supported by much more data. It is a collective mental flaw that prevents you from successfully assess various theories and their probabilities, and this leads to a downward spiral where everything is interpreted in your already determined and warped world-views.

Real quick, what "theory" do I need to confirm? And I get it you hate listening you would rather read. Brb. Running errands.

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

I need to clarify, this seems like you missed my point. Example, following put options on businesses that have direct contact with an event, such as the MGM/Mandalay bay last October. 

Maybe you're missing my point.  Let's play your game.  We analyze the thousands (probably tens of thousands) of put options that were placed on MGM (Parent company of Mandalay Bay, fyi).  We discover that out of the 10,000 put options placed on MGM, 1 of them belonged to George Soros.  SO WHAT?  Does that mean that the rest of the 9,999 put options placed on MGM were all in on it too?  That's pure insanity to think that way, bud.

Or better yet, what about the other 100 put options George Soros may have place on other businesses that had nothing to do with Mandalay Bay nor were affected by the MSM?  Let me guess....they must have all been red herrings?  

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

Real quick, what "theory" do I need to confirm? And I get it you hate listening you would rather read. Brb. Running errands.

Well there's been many theories in this thread where I have asked for proof. You have the one where you argued that TV has been dumbed down as a deliberate strategy by "someone", rather than as a effect of people basically choosing entertainment over more intellectual programs. Then you have the theory that the "Zionist lobby" and their actions affect my life. I can't bother to go back and find more. 

[Order of Nine]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well there's been many theories in this thread where I have asked for proof. You have the one where you argued that TV has been dumbed down as a deliberate strategy by "someone", rather than as a effect of people basically choosing entertainment over more intellectual programs. Then you have the theory that the "Zionist lobby" and their actions affect my life. I can't bother to go back and find more. 

Ok tv. This one's very easy for me to explain. 

Think back 50 or 60 years ago to the types of tv shows that we're broadcasted. Off the top of my head, I love Lucy, leave it to Beaver, the Andy Griffith show, the three stooges ect. Keep those in mind for a minute.

The document that I opened the thread with talks specifically about putting violence and sex into the media, corrupting and influencing what we consider "entertainment". Indulging our emotions and keeping humor below a sixth grade level. Just some points that stick out in my mind..

Now think of some of the shows that are on in today's media/tv. Family guy, game of thrones, the walking dead, ect. Im honestly not to familiar with what tv shows are today but I know those are big ones.

Now, imho If you look back on the old school shows compared to what's on today I see a complete 180 in regards to violence, sex, and lack of content that is suitable for anyone under the age of 12. Are there even any Saturday morning cartoons in existence anymore? Idk. So, to be fair, this is where I will interjected my opinion, I feel that it is the over all perception of how any rational parent would view these shows in comparison but Im sure there may be people who disagree. 

If you compare the first batch of shows I mentioned to today's batch what do you see? I see a shift towards, violence, sex, and mindless emotional indulgence. I see a complete downward spiral, morally and ethically. 

Your comment about people choosing something intellectual over entertainment leads me to think that you might view this as just a normal demand/supply scenario. I don't see it that way, in fact, what other options are there to have someone under the age of 12 view something that is educational and age appropriate on cable?? Kids today imo are under a constant onslaught of violence and adult content, even the vast majority of video games are geared for that. So what you have is an environment that is more saturated and polluted with "junk food" which I think the document spells out in those exact words.

You may see it completely different then I do, that's where I say fortunately or unfortunately perception is reality. It's true we have much more of a selection as far as quantity goes, but is it quality??? Imho I would say a firm NO. 

I will address your next question asap.

[Order of Nine]

46 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Well there's been many theories in this thread where I have asked for proof. You have the one where you argued that TV has been dumbed down as a deliberate strategy by "someone", rather than as a effect of people basically choosing entertainment over more intellectual programs. Then you have the theory that the "Zionist lobby" and their actions affect my life. I can't bother to go back and find more. 

Regarding AIPAC, the Zionist lobby.

AIPAC’s unconstitutional anti-BDS bills

There are currently two bills constituting the Israel Anti-Boycott Act of 2017 (S.720 and H.R. 1697) being considered by the Senate and House that outdo any previous deference to Israeli interests. The Senate bill was introduced by Senator Ben Cardin, who also had a hand in the trade-legislation amendments protecting Israel. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the bill was drafted with the assistance of AIPAC. The legislation, which would almost certainly be overturned as unconstitutional if it ever does in fact become law, is particularly dangerous, and goes well beyond any previous pro-Israeli legislation, essentially denying free speech when the subject is Israel.

The two versions of the bill that are moving through Congress have 238 sponsors and cosponsors in the House and 46 in the Senate. If you do your math, you will realize that those numbers already constitute a majority in the House and are only five short of one in the Senate, so passage of the bills is virtually assured. The bill’s sponsors include many congressmen who have in the past frequently spoken out in defense of free speech, with Senator Ted Cruz having said in 2014, for example, that “The First Amendment was enacted to protect unreasonable speech. I, for one, certainly don’t want our speech limited to speech that elected politicians in Washington think is reasonable.”

The movement that is particularly targeted by the bills is referred to as BDS, or Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. It is a non-violen  t reaction to the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and the continued building of Jewish-only settlements. BDS has been targeted both by the Israeli government and by AIPAC. The AIPAC website, which describes the group’s lobbying agenda, includes the promotion of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act as a top priority.

The Israeli government and its American supporters particularly fear BDS because it has become quite popular, particularly on university campuses, where administrative steps have frequently been taken to suppress it. The denial of free speech on campus when it relates to Israel has sometimes been referred to as the “Palestinian exception.” Nevertheless, the message continues to resonate, due both to its non-violence its and human rights appeal. It challenges Israel’s arbitrary military rule over 3 million Palestinians on the West Bank who have onerous restrictions placed on nearly every aspect of their daily lives. And its underlying message is that Israel is a rogue state engaging in actions that are widely considered to be both illegal and immoral, which the Israeli government rightly sees as potentially delegitimizing.

Twenty-one state legislatures have already passed various laws confronting BDS, in many cases initiating economic penalties on organizations that boycott Israel or denying state funds to colleges and universities that allow BDS advocates to operate freely on campus. The pending federal legislation would go one step further by criminalizing any U.S. citizen “engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” who supports a boycott of Israel or who even goes about “requesting the furnishing of information” regarding it, with penalties enforced through amendments of two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Act of 1945, that include potential fines of between $250,000 and $1 million and up to 20 years in prison.

Interestingly, a number of churches, to include the Presbyterians, Mennonites, and United Church of Christ, have divested from companies participating in the occupation of the West Bank and could be subject to the punitive steps authorized by the legislation. And it also is interesting to note that the bills would not punish anyone who does not have a business relationship with Israel for reasons other than politics. The punishment comes solely when one states that he or she is not engaging in business with Israel due to objections regarding what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

Daniel Larison has observed that even if one assumes that the legislation will face judicial hurdles and will never be enacted, it is nevertheless discouraging to consider that a clear majority of congressmen thinks it is perfectly acceptable to deny all Americans the right to free political expression in order to defend an internationally-acknowledged illegal occupation being carried out by a foreign country. That the occupation is illegal has even been acknowledged repeatedly by Washington, which contradicts its own policy with this legislation.

Those co-sponsoring the bills include Democrats, Republicans, progressives, and conservatives. Deference to Israeli interests is bipartisan and crosses ideological lines. Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim, writing at The Intercept, observe that “…the very mention of the word ‘Israel’ causes most members of both parties to quickly snap into line in a show of unanimity that would make the regime of North Korea blush with envy.”

Finally, the seemingly unrelenting pressure to make criticism of Israel illegal is particularly dangerous as it is international. Indeed, it is a global phenomenon. Wherever one goes—Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States—there is a well-organized and funded lobby ready, willing, and able to go to war to protect Israel. In France it is illegal to wear a t-shirt supporting BDS or to demonstrate in favor of it. Britain has introduced laws that include defining criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. In Canada, support of BDS has been regarded as a hate crime.

Will FARA registration of AIPAC as a foreign lobby fix all that? Of course not, but it would be a good first step. AIPAC would have to publicly acknowledge that it is acting on behalf of a foreign government and its sources of income would be subject to review. While the Congress is busy searching for Russian agents under FARA it just might spend some time also examining the pernicious influence of the unregistered and unrestrained Israel Lobby.

[Order of Nine]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Maybe you're missing my point.  Let's play your game.  We analyze the thousands (probably tens of thousands) of put options that were placed on MGM (Parent company of Mandalay Bay, fyi).  We discover that out of the 10,000 put options placed on MGM, 1 of them belonged to George Soros.  SO WHAT?  Does that mean that the rest of the 9,999 put options placed on MGM were all in on it too?  That's pure insanity to think that way, bud.

Or better yet, what about the other 100 put options George Soros may have place on other businesses that had nothing to do with Mandalay Bay nor were affected by the MSM?  Let me guess....they must have all been red herrings?  

 

Billionaire investor George Soros bet millions of dollars that MGM Resorts International would experience a downturn in the months before the Las Vegas shooting.

According to SEC filings from mid August, Soros purchased $42 million dollars worth of puts on the booming business industry, which indicates that he expected a market downturn for some reason and he anticipated making a lot of money off of it.

Soros, noted for his support of leftist activism and support for radical leftist politicians, stood to make a killing off of a drop in the market price of resort shares. But he wasn’t the only one betting big that something bad was coming.

Even more suspicious, MGM’s CEO, James Murren, coolly divested himself of 80% of the shares he owned in his own company in the days before the ex-dividend date on September 8th, 2017. These actions were surprising at the time because his resorts shares were doing quite well, especially in light of the fact that on Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, the board of MGM Resorts International decided to approve a $1 billion share repurchase program. At $17.7 billion today, the program represented a significant portion of its then market cap.

This meant that the CEO made a tidy profit, but that he also got out before the shares fell. The sales were originally disclosed in a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Murren had previously divested 57,269 shares on July 31st and August 9th, 2017, during the same time period that Soros was placing his put options.

The Las Vegas attack on Sunday, October 1st, caused shares of casino operators to fall the following Monday. MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay hotel near where the shooting occurred, fell 5.6 percent that day. Other resorts also slipped, though not by the same amount as Wynn Resorts slipped 1.2 percent. Las Vegas Sands fell as much as 2.1 percent before closing higher.

Analysts with investment bank Morgan Stanley forecast the shooting will decrease demand for the Las Vegas market for about six months and have a 4 percent to 6 percent economic effect, which is not huge in the long run, but when tens of millions of dollars are changing hands, those kind of numbers mean a lot of money to winners.

No one knows what compelled Murren to sell, sell, sell, but the actions don’t really make any sense in context. Why would any profit-oriented CEO of any company sell 80% of his personal stake in his own corporation, especially after he thought it was in the business’ best interest to initiate a massive share repurchase program which one would theoretically assume to reduce the number of shares in the company and increase the price of each share. Also, why would the individual with the most information about the company sell 80% of his shares immediately after the commencement of a program that most would consider positive for the stock? Shouldn’t he want to hold on to his shares? Is there something he knew, that others didn’t, that lead to so much movement in such little time? And did Soros know something no one else knew as well?

Edited January 10, 2018 by Order of Nine

[Ace Nova]

8 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

Billionaire investor George Soros bet millions of dollars that MGM Resorts International would experience a downturn in the months before the Las Vegas shooting.

According to SEC filings from mid August, Soros purchased $42 million dollars worth of puts on the booming business industry, which indicates that he expected a market downturn for some reason and he anticipated making a lot of money off of it.

Soros, noted for his support of leftist activism and support for radical leftist politicians, stood to make a killing off of a drop in the market price of resort shares. But he wasn’t the only one betting big that something bad was coming.

Even more suspicious, MGM’s CEO, James Murren, coolly divested himself of 80% of the shares he owned in his own company in the days before the ex-dividend date on September 8th, 2017. These actions were surprising at the time because his resorts shares were doing quite well, especially in light of the fact that on Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, the board of MGM Resorts International decided to approve a $1 billion share repurchase program. At $17.7 billion today, the program represented a significant portion of its then market cap.

This meant that the CEO made a tidy profit, but that he also got out before the shares fell. The sales were originally disclosed in a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Murren had previously divested 57,269 shares on July 31st and August 9th, 2017, during the same time period that Soros was placing his put options.

The Las Vegas attack on Sunday, October 1st, caused shares of casino operators to fall the following Monday. MGM Resorts International, which owns the Mandalay Bay hotel near where the shooting occurred, fell 5.6 percent that day. Other resorts also slipped, though not by the same amount as Wynn Resorts slipped 1.2 percent. Las Vegas Sands fell as much as 2.1 percent before closing higher.

Analysts with investment bank Morgan Stanley forecast the shooting will decrease demand for the Las Vegas market for about six months and have a 4 percent to 6 percent economic effect, which is not huge in the long run, but when tens of millions of dollars are changing hands, those kind of numbers mean a lot of money to winners.

No one knows what compelled Murren to sell, sell, sell, but the actions don’t really make any sense in context. Why would any profit-oriented CEO of any company sell 80% of his personal stake in his own corporation, especially after he thought it was in the business’ best interest to initiate a massive share repurchase program which one would theoretically assume to reduce the number of shares in the company and increase the price of each share. Also, why would the individual with the most information about the company sell 80% of his shares immediately after the commencement of a program that most would consider positive for the stock? Shouldn’t he want to hold on to his shares? Is there something he knew, that others didn’t, that lead to so much movement in such little time? And did Soros know something no one else knew as well?

I'm in the resort/travel industry.  Stocks fell slightly for a day or two then quickly rebounded and are still climbing.  That entire article is nonsense.

 

[AtariLegend]

Just be clear here, Order of Nine/Ratbrain isn't talking about M&M's?

[Order of Nine]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I'm in the resort/travel industry.  Stocks fell slightly for a day or two then quickly rebounded and are still climbing.  That entire article is nonsense.

 

Yeah. And George Soros never bet against anything, and it's all unicorns and flowers. 

[Ace Nova]

Just now, Order of Nine said:

Yeah. And George Soros never bet against anything, and it's all unicorns and flowers. 

MGM's stock went from $32.50 to around $31 the Monday following the shooting....so no, no one made a lot of money off of a $1.50 price drop on a stock that was valued at $32.50 before.  There's a million better ways ways to make much more money... it's not even in the realm of what an investor looks at for profit.   It's completely nonsensical.  

MGM is currently over $33.50 a share...which is HIGHER than it was before the shooting.

 

[Order of Nine]

6 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

MGM's stock went from $32.50 to around $31 the Monday following the shooting....so no, no one made a lot of money off of a $1.50 price drop on a stock that was valued at $32.50 before.  There's a million better ways ways to make much more money... it's not even in the realm of what an investor looks at for profit.   It's completely nonsensical.  

MGM is currently over $33.50 a share...which is HIGHER than it was before the shooting.

 

George Soros manages an investment fund that is required to file quarterly statements to the Securities and Commission (SEC) disclosing his positions. His most recent filings raise a few suspicious questions.

If you look at the form he filed on 5/15/2017 and compare it with his 8/14/2017 SEC Form 3f, you’ll notice the changes he made to his portfolio. He apparently had very little interest in gaming stocks…EXCEPT FOR MGM.

Here’s what you’ll find in the 5/15 filing:

• LVS (Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson’s casinos) – owned 5,000 shares
• WYNN (Wynn Resorts, Steve Wynn’s casinos) – owned 3,500 shares
• MGM – Soros held no position.

Now check out the 8/14 filing, and notice the interesting changes:

• LVS – sold 1,400 shares, leaving him with 3,600.
• WYNN – sold all 3,500 shares, leaving him with no position….and then…
• MGM – bought put options–meaning he was betting that the stock would FALL–to the tune of 1,350,000 shares.      

• Why did Soros Investment Fund open a put position worth 1.35 MILLION MGM shares when he had absolutely NO interest in MGM just three months earlier?

   What information did Soros have indicating that MGM would fall?

   Was Soros in cahoots with CEO James Murren…who apparently sold 80% of his shares BEFORE the attack took place?

• You clearly haven't been following George Soros, I am sure they must mention his name daily in the MSM. It's a good thing snopes cleared up all the confusion and discredited all the people that watch his investments like a hawk.

[Ace Nova]

16 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

George Soros manages an investment fund that is required to file quarterly statements to the Securities and Commission (SEC) disclosing his positions. His most recent filings raise a few suspicious questions.

If you look at the form he filed on 5/15/2017 and compare it with his 8/14/2017 SEC Form 3f, you’ll notice the changes he made to his portfolio. He apparently had very little interest in gaming stocks…EXCEPT FOR MGM.

Here’s what you’ll find in the 5/15 filing:

• LVS (Las Vegas Sands, Sheldon Adelson’s casinos) – owned 5,000 shares
• WYNN (Wynn Resorts, Steve Wynn’s casinos) – owned 3,500 shares
• MGM – Soros held no position.

Now check out the 8/14 filing, and notice the interesting changes:

• LVS – sold 1,400 shares, leaving him with 3,600.
• WYNN – sold all 3,500 shares, leaving him with no position….and then…
• MGM – bought put options–meaning he was betting that the stock would FALL–to the tune of 1,350,000 shares.      

• Why did Soros Investment Fund open a put position worth 1.35 MILLION MGM shares when he had absolutely NO interest in MGM just three months earlier?

   What information did Soros have indicating that MGM would fall?

   Was Soros in cahoots with CEO James Murren…who apparently sold 80% of his shares BEFORE the attack took place?

• You clearly haven't been following George Soros, I am sure they must mention his name daily in the MSM. It's a good thing snopes cleared up all the confusion and discredited all the people that watch his investments like a hawk.

You realize  that depending on the amount of the put options, etc...there's a decent chance he may have LOST money on them since the stock didn't fall enough?   The cost of the put option contract could have easily been more than the $1.50 a share that the stock fell.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Order of Nine]

Another root problem that has not been addressed in the U.S. politics thread are laws like the NDAA and HR-5736, they are completely unconstitutional and give the media free reign over what is reported.

Straight from the pages of publications that passed along lies about Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” and that gave Donald Trump at least $2 billion in free media coverage comes a sudden concern about fake news.

The big-business-owned media narrative that Russia interfered with the U.S. elections by allegedly sponsoring stories more favorable to Trump than Clinton has been omnipresent in the news since late November.

Three other important stories concerning journalists also broke, but they were all published in noncorporate media and you may not have noticed them.

First, Mark Ames wrote for Alternet about how the anonymous group “PropOrNot” — “Prop” meaning propaganda — has ties to Ukrainian fascists. The Washington Post had covered without question this group’s release of a list of some 200 independent news sources that it accused of promulgating Russian state propaganda. Outlets charged as being compromised by the Russian government include far-right websites like Drudge Report as well as left-wing websites such as Black Agenda Report. (Dec. 7)

Then Rania Khalek wrote for Alternet that journalists have been approached to move to Turkey and write pro-war propaganda for those fighting the government in Syria. They were offered $17,000 a month. (Dec. 8)

Now comes another step to promote pro-war propaganda — under the guise of “countering foreign propaganda.”

On Dec. 8 the Senate passed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Quietly inserted into the NDAA was the “Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act,” originally introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who had said in a press release that the bill, among other measures, “establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.”

Legalizing domestic propaganda in U.S.

Because these stories were not blown up in the corporate media, you may not have noticed them. Instead you may have noticed stories in the New Yorker and New York Post and all over television and radio reporting that Russia has infiltrated the U.S. journalism landscape and has possibly bought off U.S. media and tampered with the U.S. elections.

The last U.S. government effort toward legalizing domestic propaganda happened in 2013 when the NDAA explicitly repealed parts of the Smith-Mundt Act, which had been passed in 1949 to prevent Voice of America propaganda from being broadcast inside the U.S. This made it possible for VOA (whose employees work at Buzzfeed and the Atlantic Council) and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (patrons of supposedly secure communications software like Tor and Signal) to aim their propaganda at the U.S. domestic population. As a result, 2014 saw an incredible uptick in editorials encouraging people in the U.S. to support U.S. war and intervention in the Middle East, whether against the Islamic State group (IS) or the Syrian government.

The median pay of a U.S. journalist is around $39,000 a year. (payscale.com) In a city like New York, this makes journalism a nearly impossible endeavor. With freelance journalists making around $250 an article, this means quantity is key, not quality.

A well-thought-out article may cost the journalist more time and energy than it’s worth. Grants from the U.S. government that are supposed to “support local independent media to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their communities” will line more pockets. They will favor those toeing the official line over those engaging in adversarial journalism — exposing and countering the lies of capitalism and imperialism.

The new bill also offers grants to “collect and store examples of disinformation and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies.” This is clearly a call for a hit list, such as was seen in the pages of the Washington Post when it covered the anonymous “PropOrNot” list of supposedly unreliable news websites.

In this country, corporate-owned media are clearly accountable to the government and private interests, not the public they are supposed to serve.

[Order of Nine]

Just now, Kasanova King said:

You realize  that depending on the amount of the put options, etc...there's a decent chance he may have LOST money on them since the stock didn't fall enough?  

Soros has always won in the long run, that guy has alot of people in his back pocket. He's not even a trillionare, we haven't even touched on any of them yet. Let me guess, people that own trillions are a "theory" too right? 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

Soros has always won in the long run, that guy has alot of people in his back pocket. He's not even a trillionare, we haven't even touched on any of them yet. Let me guess, people that own trillions are a "theory" too right? 

Name some of the world's "Trillionares". 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Order of Nine said:

It's true we have much more of a selection as far as quantity goes, but is it quality???

Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, The Wire etc are worse than Leave it to fuckin' Beaver? That's your argument? Really?

[Order of Nine]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, The Wire etc are worse than Leave it to fuckin' Beaver? That's your argument? Really?

If you cant see a consistent downgrade in the evolution of how movies, tv shows, and the media uses violence and mindless indulgence then congrats, your a part of the problem. 

[Order of Nine]

The NDAA

In typical NDAA signing fashion, Obama signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) quietly and with little fan fare as Americans are distracted by the mholiday festivities. What dirty tricks can we expect to see in the 2017 NDAA? Coming from the policy makers that struck down the Smith Mundt Act and legalized indefinite detention of Americans in past iterations, we’re sure it can’t be benign this year.

The Hypocrisy of legalizing propaganda (overturning the Smith Mundt Act) then creating an act to counter propaganda: What are we to make of this new “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” included in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act? The politicians and the mainstream media outlets have shown their cards yet again with a massive contradiction in policy.

In one iteration of the NDAA policy makers overturn Smith Mundt thereby legalizing state sponsored propaganda to be used on the citizens of the United States and in the latest iteration we see the NDAA include an act to counter disinformation and propaganda. We can easily make the connection that in the wake of the “Fake News” hash tag war that has been unleashed upon independent media, with FaceBook partnering with government sponsored “Fact Checking” sites and algorithms being put in place to remove so-called “Fake News” from social media feeds, that this latest addition to the NDAA does not bode well for independent media and has massive potential to be abused for political purposes.

Late on Friday, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military in 2017.

In a statement, Obama said that:

Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Much of the balance of Obama’s statement blamed the GOP for Guantanamo’s continued operation and warned that “unless the Congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history,” Obama said. Obama also said Congress failed to use the bill to reduce wasteful overhead (like perhaps massive F-35 cost overruns?) or modernize military health care, which he said would exacerbate budget pressures facing the military in the years ahead.

But while the passage of the NDAA – and the funding of the US military – was hardly a surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense Authortization Act.

Recall that as we reported in early June, “a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Long before the “fake news” meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before “fake news” became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label “fake news.”

Fast forward to December 8, when the “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

And now, following Friday’s Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law.

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

If you cant see a consistent downgrade in the evolution of how movies, tv shows, and the media uses violence and mindless indulgence then congrats, your a part of the problem. 

If you think that any of those shows are a downgrade from the Andy Griffith Show then you need help.

[Order of Nine]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

If you think that any of those shows are a downgrade from the Andy Griffith Show then you need help.

For real. That made me laugh. I get what your saying. It is a boring show but Im looking at it from the perspective of a parent. 

[Ace Nova]

4 minutes ago, Order of Nine said:

For real. That made me laugh. I get what your saying. It is a boring show but Im looking at it from the perspective of a parent. 

Do you teach your children that they are living in a world where every major event in history was some sort of conspiracy and that the world is run by secret societies that have nothing but evil intentions for mankind?

 

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Order of Nine said:

Ok tv. This one's very easy for me to explain. 

Think back 50 or 60 years ago to the types of tv shows that we're broadcasted. Off the top of my head, I love Lucy, leave it to Beaver, the Andy Griffith show, the three stooges ect. Keep those in mind for a minute.

The document that I opened the thread with talks specifically about putting violence and sex into the media, corrupting and influencing what we consider "entertainment". Indulging our emotions and keeping humor below a sixth grade level. Just some points that stick out in my mind..

Now think of some of the shows that are on in today's media/tv. Family guy, game of thrones, the walking dead, ect. Im honestly not to familiar with what tv shows are today but I know those are big ones.

Now, imho If you look back on the old school shows compared to what's on today I see a complete 180 in regards to violence, sex, and lack of content that is suitable for anyone under the age of 12. Are there even any Saturday morning cartoons in existence anymore? Idk. So, to be fair, this is where I will interjected my opinion, I feel that it is the over all perception of how any rational parent would view these shows in comparison but Im sure there may be people who disagree. 

If you compare the first batch of shows I mentioned to today's batch what do you see? I see a shift towards, violence, sex, and mindless emotional indulgence. I see a complete downward spiral, morally and ethically. 

Your comment about people choosing something intellectual over entertainment leads me to think that you might view this as just a normal demand/supply scenario. I don't see it that way, in fact, what other options are there to have someone under the age of 12 view something that is educational and age appropriate on cable?? Kids today imo are under a constant onslaught of violence and adult content, even the vast majority of video games are geared for that. So what you have is an environment that is more saturated and polluted with "junk food" which I think the document spells out in those exact words.

You may see it completely different then I do, that's where I say fortunately or unfortunately perception is reality. It's true we have much more of a selection as far as quantity goes, but is it quality??? Imho I would say a firm NO. 

Yes, I accept there might have been a shift in the the quality of TV. But I sincerely believe this is a consequence of what people want to watch. Before we didn't have much choices, and TV broadcasters often had an agenda to educate. Today, with numerous competitors for our attention (not only those 6 megacorps you like to refer to, but anyone vying for our attention), it means that whatever type of program wins out in the end is the one that people prefer to see. So the trend towards "dumbing" is not due to some sinister plan by the reptile people or whatever, but just a natural consequence of consumer preference. 

Again, I believe that my explanation is more plausible than yours. Yours imply some kind of grand conspiracy where all TV broadcasters, and anyone else vying for our attention, is collaborating in some global scheme, to make us ignorant. And that is just plainly ridiculous. Not because it is impossible but because it is highly unlikely.