WOKE and proud of it....

[henry quirk]

Well we have an election coming up as well, and I can't say our choices are any better than yours.

Isn't Farage in there?

[Age]

it still seems odd that a nation the size of yours can't produce two better candidates.

It can't.

For one: most Americans don't wanna run for office. The few that do are suspect, naive, or USAians in disguise.

For another: USAians are a stingy, exclusive bunch who don't want Americans involved in what they see as their business.

Really, it comes down to this: free men don't wanna be slavers and slavers don't want free men screwin' the pooch.

and we are LARGE...that adds to the unruliness of America and makes the USA's preying on America less successful.

and speaking of praying: who wants to hear how Americans don't give a rat's ass about which god you pray to, and why it seems that we do

Well we have an election coming up as well, and I can't say our choices are any better than yours.

I would suggest that the "candidates" in 'this country' there you are referring to here, (without even knowing what country that it is) would 'have to be' better than the two "candidates" in 'that country', which is very Falsely and Wrongly called and claimed to be the "united states of america".

Out of all of the human being population on earth, in the days when this was being written, the only two human beings that the people of the "united states of america" could 'find' and have 'chosen' to be the "candidates", to be the so-called "president", over them and over the way they live, is the two "candidates" that they had, then if I was one of 'those people' of 'that country' I would be suggesting that 'we' 'change the rules' and allow just about anyone else from absolutely any other country on earth to come and 'run as a candidate'. Surely, 'we' could not find anyone 'worse'.

If there is no one 'better' in 'that country', than 'those two', then I, for one anyway, would be looking further afield, and abroad.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…and another lie bites the dust.

A documentary that explains the counter-MSM narrative.

Again, once again, it requires a time-consuming and Involved effort to sort out the half-truths, lies, distortions and political motivations from so many of the knotty stories of our day.

Liz Collins (reporter in the above documentary) also wrote a book on the convoluted incident: They're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd that offers a very different view.

[Peter Kropotkin]

…and another lie bites the dust.

A documentary that explains the counter-MSM narrative.

Again, once again, it requires a time-consuming and Involved effort to sort out the half-truths, lies, distortions and political motivations from so many of the knotty stories of our day.

Liz Collins (reporter in the above documentary) also wrote a book on the convoluted incident: They're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd that offers a very different view.

K: by your own account, we are unable to trust the media... why should we
trust the media, which by your own account, is false and corrupt....

media is media is media... fun fact: 6 corporations own 95%
of all the media in America.... how can we trust any media if this is true?
where are you going to draw the line? Great, don't trust the media..
then you can't trust any of them... now what?

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

…and another lie bites the dust.

A documentary that explains the counter-MSM narrative.

Again, once again, it requires a time-consuming and Involved effort to sort out the half-truths, lies, distortions and political motivations from so many of the knotty stories of our day.

Liz Collins (reporter in the above documentary) also wrote a book on the convoluted incident: They're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd that offers a very different view.

That's definitely not the story I've generally heard regarding the George Floyd incident. Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark? It's almost surreal to think so. Something doesn't add up.

[Immanuel Can]

This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.


K: and another lie bites the dust....

Not so fast. All you did is pick the very first result off of Google, believe it entirely, quote it verbatim, and say that's the truth. You trust the major mass media to tell you that the major mass media is telling you the truth. Nice thinking.

So let's balance your "reporting" with something on the other side: https://tennesseestar.com/news/court-do ... 023/10/18/.

Interesting how much redaction there is in the record, isn't it? I wonder why so much information had to be suppressed...

let us take you at your word and dismiss the media... how can
we accept the word of the Tennessee star over AP?

You gave me a mass media source. I gave you a mass media source. But mine contained the actual conversations and transcripts yours lacked. Now, you may agree with my website, or you may agree with AP: but whichever one you agree with has to be based on the facts, not on what you find winsome or convenient to be true.

But I have seen lots more than this. And you can, too. Watch this: https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... igjFA,st:0. Ignore the commentary, if you don't trust the source. Just watch the pictures and the evidence, and look at the documents. Check it out for yourself.

So, you don't trust the media, you don't trust the government,
you don't trust, well anything...... anything except what
a 34 count convicted felon tells you.... a convicted felon
with dementia....

I have no idea who you're talking about...George Floyd? I don't think he's talking.

[Gary Childress]

Not so fast. All you did is pick the very first result off of Google, believe it entirely, quote it verbatim, and say that's the truth. You trust the major mass media to tell you that the major mass media is telling you the truth. Nice thinking.

So let's balance your "reporting" with something on the other side: https://tennesseestar.com/news/court-do ... 023/10/18/.

Interesting how much redaction there is in the record, isn't it? I wonder why so much information had to be suppressed...

let us take you at your word and dismiss the media... how can
we accept the word of the Tennessee star over AP?

You gave me a mass media source. I gave you a mass media source. But mine contained the actual conversations and transcripts yours lacked. Now, you may agree with my website, or you may agree with AP: but whichever one you agree with has to be based on the facts, not on what you find winsome or convenient to be true.

But I have seen lots more than this. And you can, too. Watch this: https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... igjFA,st:0. Ignore the commentary, if you don't trust the source. Just watch the pictures and the evidence, and look at the documents. Check it out for yourself.

So, you don't trust the media, you don't trust the government,
you don't trust, well anything...... anything except what
a 34 count convicted felon tells you.... a convicted felon
with dementia....

I have no idea who you're talking about...George Floyd? I don't think he's talking.

I think the "34 count convicted felon" he's referring to is Trump. I get that many on the right are not enjoying the blowback our nation and (by extension) our allies are receiving from the horrendous mistakes of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, we can't have everything. We did our "taking" now we need to give ground, I think. And I don't think Trump is up for the task. Is Trump a horrible candidate? No. But I get the picture that he's taking matters into his own hands and that seems reckless to me.

[Immanuel Can]

let us take you at your word and dismiss the media... how can
we accept the word of the Tennessee star over AP?

You gave me a mass media source. I gave you a mass media source. But mine contained the actual conversations and transcripts yours lacked. Now, you may agree with my website, or you may agree with AP: but whichever one you agree with has to be based on the facts, not on what you find winsome or convenient to be true.

But I have seen lots more than this. And you can, too. Watch this: https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... igjFA,st:0. Ignore the commentary, if you don't trust the source. Just watch the pictures and the evidence, and look at the documents. Check it out for yourself.

So, you don't trust the media, you don't trust the government,
you don't trust, well anything...... anything except what
a 34 count convicted felon tells you.... a convicted felon
with dementia....

I have no idea who you're talking about...George Floyd? I don't think he's talking.

I think the "34 count convicted felon" he's referring to is Trump.

I have no interest in that, and have no idea what he's talking about. I didn't get any information at all from Trump. I don't even live in his country.

Is Kropotkin on crack?

[Gary Childress]

You gave me a mass media source. I gave you a mass media source. But mine contained the actual conversations and transcripts yours lacked. Now, you may agree with my website, or you may agree with AP: but whichever one you agree with has to be based on the facts, not on what you find winsome or convenient to be true.

But I have seen lots more than this. And you can, too. Watch this: https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... igjFA,st:0. Ignore the commentary, if you don't trust the source. Just watch the pictures and the evidence, and look at the documents. Check it out for yourself.

I have no idea who you're talking about...George Floyd? I don't think he's talking.

I think the "34 count convicted felon" he's referring to is Trump.

I have no interest in that, and have no idea what he's talking about. I didn't get any information at all from Trump. I don't even live in his country.

Is Kropotkin on crack?

OK. Then perhaps dropping the topic of Donald Trump is in order. As an American, I care about my country and I think Trump is reckless. I would rather not see him in office. So I'll leave it at that.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the "34 count convicted felon" he's referring to is Trump.

I have no interest in that, and have no idea what he's talking about. I didn't get any information at all from Trump. I don't even live in his country.

Is Kropotkin on crack?

OK. Then perhaps dropping the topic of Donald Trump is in order.

I never raised it. I have no idea why Kropotkin thinks he's relevant at all to the G. Floyd situation. He's certainly nobody I consulted about it, so his even having brought up such a reference can't be anything but a total red herring.

[Gary Childress]

I have no interest in that, and have no idea what he's talking about. I didn't get any information at all from Trump. I don't even live in his country.

Is Kropotkin on crack?

OK. Then perhaps dropping the topic of Donald Trump is in order.

I never raised it. I have no idea why Kropotkin thinks he's relevant at all to the G. Floyd situation. He's certainly nobody I consulted about it, so his even having brought up such a reference can't be anything but a total red herring.

Fair enough. I'm not sure how he fits into the George Floyd situation either, other than being President at the time and having made remarks about police "giving criminals an extra thump on the head" and his comments concerning the Charlottesville situation which seemed to inflame an already volatile situation with minorities.

[Harbal]

Well we have an election coming up as well, and I can't say our choices are any better than yours.

Isn't Farage in there?

I'd forgotten about him, but it proves my point.

[promethean75]

"Is Kropotkin on crack?"

Don't be holdin out on me, keter. Lemme get a blast bro. I'll getchu back.

[Will Bouwman]

It's not about what I saw. It's about what you will believe...which appears to be...nothing.

It really depends on what you mean by believe.

No, no...it actually doesn't. The truth doesn't depend on that at all.

The truth is what it is and doesn't depend on anything. You can think of the truth as Kant's noumenon. There is something that accounts for the phenomena we are confronted by and have to make sense of. To some of us, it is a thing of beauty that exactly the same phenomena can be explained in so many ways. It is a tragedy for people who see this as a threat.

They tell us that Joe Biden's healthy, stable and sane...but we can see him every day.

They and we? Where is the boundary? At what point does a fellow human become "they"? I was brought up in a Christian milieu, I was told it's the rocky path and perhaps the hardest thing of all is to love your enemies. That to me seems to be your biggest failure as someone who professes Christianity. Where is your love for others?

[Alexis Jacobi]

By your own account, we are unable to trust the media. Why should we trust the media, which by your own account, is false and corrupt.

Media is media is media. Fun fact: 6 corporations own 95% of all the media in America. How can we trust any media if this is true?
Where are you going to draw the line? Great, don't trust the media. Then you can't trust any of them. Now what?

Actually we have to start simply from what has been asserted and what you are confirming: that the MSM have been corrupted. How? Why? When? And what does this mean? An assertion is merely that until we gather more evidence. For the average person, busy with the living of life and responsibilities related to that, I say that it is nearly impossible to *get to the real truth*. In that situation that person is dependent on entities (corporate newsrooms) and people who work for them, and these put together *stories* which have a developed editorial line.

One other thing I'd say: I would suggest starting also with an examination of the news consumer -- in this case with you! I know you are as suspicious of me (and what you refer to as Conservatism) as I am of you, but I would say that we both need to be put under a microscope and to examine the structure of our intellects, our background in education, but also our political and social orientations. Because if, and this is just an example, if you or I do not have a capacity to reason soundly, examine evidence, and to have a platform of rationality (there may be a whole group of needed qualities) then we ourselves will be defective interpreters of the information presented to us.

So we have two factors: 1) the individual who receives information and 2) entities that form the information for his "consumption*.

Additionally, and we should all be aware of this, we are in the midst of civil conflicts that are like battles and low-scale wars. And we should know that in war "the truth" (truthful perspectives) are sacrificed to the need to have poignant, sharpened idea- and perspective-weapons.

There is another element here, an important one: We must be aware that in times of social and political upheaval -- cultural war -- that there are entities and powers whose singular and true interest is in getting things to settle down so that *business-as-usual* can resume. But this also implies, on a larger world scale, that there are elites (as they are called) who have everything to gain from a globalized system that functions in a proper, productive and business-like way. So I would say one has to be aware of the collusion between a nation's intelligence apparatus and these business enterprises.

Within that context, and given the social crises in the United States, one could and perhaps one should expect that on a larger scale that the events of today are being *directed* to at least some degree. Now, to what degree we cannot know with certainty. But we do have stories -- evidence in fact -- of the employment of the FBI in processes of going after various people and groups. But what role then does the FBI have? And what role has it had in US politics? That is a question that requires an answer.

I realize this is a loose sketch of different aspects that need to be put out there on the table. Note that there was a time when someone -- like you for example -- would have been interested and capable of seeing all the pieces of the larger puzzle. It was the traditional Left that did the exposés on Federal police abuses (the FBI against MLK and even its involvement in his assassination, just one example).

But now the Left-Progressives seem to stand on the side of *the State*. They seem to take up causes that were formerly held by the Right. For example their seeming support of war. Of government activity in directing or influencing events within the social sphere(s).

So now we return to the incidents around George Floyd. It is actually astoundingly complex, isn't it? A videotaped event of a cop subduing an uncooperative Black man. Taken just on the face (what we see) will immediately influence anyone looking at it toward a conclusion of police brutality. But then there is another context: a society roiled up for a whole group of reasons. Anger, frustration, a rebellious attitude toward police authority. But all of that in a context of narratives about *systemic injustice* and, let's say, the stoking of resentments. A great deal of this intended to create bad feelings about Trump.

These things have to be looked at and considered from a distance and from a non-prejudiced perspective. Who can attain that? Who sees clearly?

So we can see that the event (the video) and then the death of this man was, to be truthful, a perfect storm that became completely explosive. And the event (this is my perspective of course, having studied it) was glommed onto by people and entities with an interest in its exploitation. For what purposes? Well, that is a question that takes time and energy to answer.

Now, should I *believe* Liz Collin's reporting? I do not think the answer should immediately be yes. But this is the problem, isn't it? How much time do I have, or you have, at your disposal to dedicate to one incident like this? Myself, I am influenced to believe there is *more to the story* than we have been led to believe.

But what about the trail and the conviction? The implication is of bad faith on the part of the judge. That requires another time-consuming look. Who has the time?

That's definitely not the story I've generally heard regarding the George Floyd incident. Is it possible that the mainstream media are that far off the mark? It's almost surreal to think so. Something doesn't add up.

And when you (or we) begin to put together just why things don't *add up* we are then at a point of better understanding the immense confusions operative in our present, and the reasons why the battles are being fought to control and direct perspectives. If the question is Why are things like this? And How can I get real and true information about things -- that question leads into many others