Just like everyone else right?
check it out plz. it's more geared toward the kind of people here.
http://eatingpropaganda.blogspot.com/
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Your blog Eating Propaganda provides no explanation for why it is titled that.
Your blogger name Em_ptySkin sounds randomly chosen.
You describe yourself as “an unintentional) iconoclast” without noting the difference, if it exists, between an unintentional iconoclast and an iconoclast.
“After all, why the fuck should anyone listen to (or read) any dumbshit's opinion on things that people do not pay attention to? I don't know . . . Keep an open mind. (But, not too open...) (geez)”
Whether your tone shifts from serious to funny or from funny to serious is uncertain. The reader can be confused as to what is your intention.
Your first blog post: my assessment
“The media gives us shit to work with if we are trying to actually promote good in the world.”
Explain.
“Obama is pretty much assured a second term with the Republican candidates as they are.”
This is a prediction that will be tested in time, but why do you believe it?
“Now, many people think he [Ron Paul] doesn't have a chance. This is because they are superficial and don't actually know very much about how the real world works.”
This ad hominem is turning me off. If you had evidence people who doubt Ron Paul’s ability to be the Republican nominee are “superficial” (IDK what your definition of that is), then I could accept your claim, but to just insult people is unimpressive. Some people predict Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination due to political polls, not because they are “superficial”.
“This election will be different.”
I doubt that. The U.S. public does not understand the business cycle, what causes inflation, and other basic things. They can be easily led by more hope, change, and yes we can from another optimistic candidate.
“The difference between the 2012 election and the past two elections in 2004 and 2008, is that we have no obvious “mainstream” anti-war candidate.”
Yes, but the likely big issue for the 2012 election will be the economy.
"Your blog Eating Propaganda provides no explanation for why it is titled that."
Does it matter? does it make you think? or do i have to spoon feed you everything? amybe your eating propaganda because you think it's food for thought?
"Your blogger name Em_ptySkin sounds randomly chosen."
your claim is arbitrary. It is my internet gaming handle; it is not random it pokes fun at masonic symoblism. (Em = 33) and it implies that i have no insides. also why would you think this is relevent criticism?
"You describe yourself as “an unintentional) iconoclast” without noting the difference, if it exists, between an unintentional iconoclast and an iconoclast."
You answer your own question here. do my normal thoughts offend you or shatter your world view? I am not intending to, but if so, then i am an unintentional iconoclast. (people have accused me being one)
"Whether your tone shifts from serious to funny or from funny to serious is uncertain. The reader can be confused as to what is your intention."
I am trying to help people find comedy (and actually to think about) important things that many might not find funny (or think about).
- MY WHOLE POST IS THE EXPLANATION. End the wars and cut the debt. pretty simple. maybe it's because i write in a way that makes you read between the lines. reading one line out of context of the other 100 or w/e wont do it.
"This is a prediction that will be tested in time, but why do you believe it?"
AGAIN MY POST EXPLAINS THIS. but here's your spoon: THE antiwar vote is the only segment that can, at this point, split the vote of each party. this will only pay off for obama or paul. based on the "SOCIAL CONSERVATISM" argument. If the GOP runs romney they will not get a single antiwar voter or liberal to jump ship. They have too much in common. If the GOP runs bachmann or cain the liberals will not vote for them because of their stance on civil liberties. If the GOP gives it to Paul he can cut down obama's base by stealing antiwar and civil liberty votes. and the tea party will never vote for obama.
This is relevant. the superficiality should be summed up in bread and circuses. for god's sake, you say in your next comment exactly why that is. The political polls mean nothing to informed voters because you know and i know they are ignorant sheep being led to slaughter by JPmorgan chase and lockheed martin (and AIPAC)
so are you criticising me or just agreeing in different words? This is almost explaining my comment about superficiality. also, did you watch the debate? "Do you watch dancing with the stars or american idol? Coke or Pepsi BLACKBERRY OR IPHONE?" what seems superficial about that? ( SPOON: SARCASM)
This is true as well, which is why i spent two paragraphs with economics and debt. i didn't even get specific i just linked out to WSJ et al. The left gets the antiwar attention and the right gets the economy. Not complicated. I think i offended you by implying in my post that anyone without confidence in ron paul is "superficial."
and did you not think my comments on petraus and bachmann were ad hominem or purely speculative? they are jokes i am making. Mixing dry humor and sobering news is cool to me. Now why is your posting handle Gero? it doesn't make sense to me. (HA)
“Does it [Eating Propaganada] matter?”
You asked people to check out your blog. I did. I asked a question.
“does it [Eating Propaganada] make you think?”
I could speculate as to the meaning, but asking you what it meant would likely solicit an answer.
“or do i have to spoon feed you everything?”
Asking questions = spoon feeding? Nice way to discourage discussion. Asking questions proves the questioner is stupid? I don’t buy that.
“also why would you think this is relevent criticism?”
You asked people to check out your blog. I did. I asked a question. I did not confine my assessment to solely your blog post. I examined the blog’s title and your blogger name.
“- MY WHOLE POST IS THE EXPLANATION.”
Yelling at me with large text does not strength your argument.
“End the wars and cut the debt. pretty simple.”
So “The media gives us shit to work with” means they provide stories (the shit, to use your terminology)? I didn’t know if you meant that or if by shit, you abbreviated the word bullshit to criticize the media. What you write is obvious to you since you know your intentions. I do not. That is why I ask questions.
“AGAIN MY POST EXPLAINS THIS. but here's your spoon: THE antiwar vote is the only segment that can, at this point, split the vote of each party. this will only pay off for obama or paul. based on the "SOCIAL CONSERVATISM" argument. If the GOP runs romney they will not get a single antiwar voter or liberal to jump ship. They have too much in common. If the GOP runs bachmann or cain the liberals will not vote for them because of their stance on civil liberties. If the GOP gives it to Paul he can cut down obama's base by stealing antiwar and civil liberty votes. and the tea party will never vote for obama.”
You did not explicitly say this in your post. You listed why certain candidates would not likely win and then you praised Ron Paul. Okay, but I appreciate if all parts of an argument are explicitly identified.
“the superficiality should be summed up in bread and circuses. for god's sake, you say in your next comment exactly why that is.”
I did not intend my next comment as a definition for superficiality. Again, what you write is obvious to you since you know your intentions. I do not. That is why I ask questions.
“The political polls mean nothing to informed voters because you know and i know they are ignorant sheep being led to slaughter by JPmorgan chase and lockheed martin (and AIPAC)”
I can understand JPMorgan Chase & Co. preference for bailouts that can lead the public “to slaughter”,but why single out Lockheed Martin and AIPAC out of every other special interest group?
“so are you criticising me or just agreeing in different words?”
I doubt the 2012 election will result in Ron Paul being the Republican nominee. He would have to perform such an educational campaign to persuade voters that, while I do not consider it impossible, I consider it unlikely. Until people have a much more comprehensive libertarian worldview, they can be swayed from one political party or candidate to another based on whims like fix the economy, fix healthcare, and it looks like that guy can do it. Consider Mitt Romney who has good polling. Why? Because the electorate is ignorant. If they just watch ObamaCare is RomneyCare 2.0, they might learn something, but you do not have to know anything to vote. Until the people have some understanding of economic causation, they can continue voting for quasi-messiahs to save them with their economic central plans.
“also, did you watch the debate?”
Yes. The trivial questions were asked before cutting to commercial break. Not every question was trivial.
“This is true as well, which is why i spent two paragraphs with economics and debt.”
In your blog post, you said, ‘The main issue for the tea party is the debt. It is obvious that Paul is the only economically literate candidate.’ But why should the public believe Ron Paul knows more about the economy than Barack Obama. You can say why you believe Ron Paul knows more, but will the public agree with you? You agreed with my earlier comment that “The U.S. public does not understand the business cycle, what causes inflation, and other basic things.” As I said earlier, without an educational campaign, Ron Paul will not effect long-lasting change. He could be elected President, but the electorate could turn on him a few years later for not fixing everything. Well, no one could, but the public is fickle, ignorant, and not held accountable for its irrationality.
“and did you not think my comments on petraus and bachmann were ad hominem or purely speculative? they are jokes i am making.”
The only general you cite is McChrystal. You said Bachmann was xenophobic without providing evidence.
“Now why is your posting handle Gero? it doesn't make sense to me. (HA)”
You mises.org name is Jacob. Sounds like a name to me. My mises.org name is Gero. Not a typical name, but it sounds like a name to me. Em_ptySkin does not sound like a name to me.
i'm not gonna answer all of these since i think you are trolling
I say in my post how the liberals could be driven away from obama (a key to Paul's success) and the tea party's main issue is dbt (the economy). The post is meant to help persuade thme as well.
so if my post is called 'debt and war' and you understand why i NAME JPM, but cannot put together why i also selected a top defense contractor and the most prominent foriegn lobby in the country? i mention in my post "bankruptcy" and "a possible world war" i provide maybe 15 links in my whole post. seven of which are dedicated to defense related issues. I also ask rhetorical questions about the intentions of the defense contractors. And we all know that Israel owns this country lock, stock, and barrel. Even after 9/11 Netenyahoo (haha) said this. Look it up.
part of his campaign success relies on already informed voters helping to bring understanding to non- or uninformed voters. You know the public is ignorant so why not try and help out?
But why should the public believe Ron Paul knows more about the economy than Barack Obama. You can say why you believe Ron Paul knows more, but will the public agree with you?
Haha. I guess the public should look around? maybe listen when they speak? I also linked to a free book (pdf form of "pillars of Prosperity") It is a collection of speeches he has made and if people are so inclined as to read some of it or maybe do a search to find out his opinion they will have a resource where they can see Paul speak about economic woes. Obama just smiles and says he'll 'fix' 'it'. The public would have no choice but to agree if debates were relevant.
I cite McChrystal's pakistani invasion plan. I make a joke about Petraeus as if he was on stage (at the debate) and ask a 'superficil' question that is meant to immascualte him as a person and as an effective general. I don't need to provide 'evidence' of bachmanns xenophobia if you saw the debate. She has religious blinders on and condemned herself (as did a few others) when they said the would Amend the constitution to prevent gay folks from hitching. They are xenophobic. no question about it. they can call it moralism, but it is moralism based in a specific belief structure. as well as the anti muslim fervor of a few of the others.
you are spilting hairs on some of these things. and caps are not 'yelling' they are stressing the obviousness of the answer that you cannot seem to pull from the words that i put in specific orders. did you click any of the links? or are you just taking my word for it?
“i'm not gonna answer all of these since i think you are trolling”
I’m not.
“I say in my post how the liberals could be driven away from obama (a key to Paul's success) and the tea party's main issue is dbt (the economy). The post is meant to help persuade thme as well.”
Okay.
“so if my post is called 'debt and war' and you understand why i NAME JPM”
Yes, but you could also mention Goldman Sachs. Many financial services were bailed out. Why just name one?
“And we all know that Israel owns this country lock, stock, and barrel. Even after 9/11 Netenyahoo (haha) said this. Look it up.”
No, we do not “all know that Israel owns this country lock, stock, and barrel.” I would ask you for evidence, but you said to look it up. How about you provide evidence to back up your claims?
“You know the public is ignorant so why not try and help out?”
I do so in my own ways, but this thread is about your blog, not about my influence upon the 2012 election.
“I also linked to a free book (pdf form of "pillars of Prosperity") It is a collection of speeches he has made and if people are so inclined as to read some of it or maybe do a search to find out his opinion they will have a resource where they can see Paul speak about economic woes.”
I hope an uninformed voter reads it or similar free market material, but I doubt it. How many voters, when the race is between a Republican and Democrat, carefully peruse the websites of the candidates to understand their positions versus just hearing sound bites? Not many, I bet.
“I don't need to provide 'evidence' of bachmanns xenophobia if you saw the debate. She has religious blinders on and condemned herself (as did a few others) when they said the would Amend the constitution to prevent gay folks from hitching. They are xenophobic.”
Okay, we had a different word definition. By xenophobia I thought you meant strictly immigration, but you include gay couples, so Bachmann’s opposition to same-sex marriage can be labeled xenophobic. Confusion rectified.
“did you click any of the links?”
Yes, all of them. Some I read. Some I already saw, like a YouTube clip. We had some misunderstandings. Oh well.
damn. i typed a whole thing and it got erased. Wasn't trying to chastise you and i appreciate the comments, i thought you were doing the same as casey earlier and just flaming me to flame.
glad you're helping, my comment was more or less rhetorical.
JPM isn't in the news. Goldman gets too much press to be the main driver. JPM took over BS and WaMu in very shady circumstances. Blythe Masters of JPMC&c London created the Credit Default Swap and knew it was dangerous, but didn't warn anyone but her bank (yes, good for business; bad for us cause of the bailouts)
Xenophobia i thought meant fear of change. i assumed it included immigration, gay marriage, and religion. The Law of the Land need not change on cultural whims it is for legal procedures not behavioral regulation.
It wasn't Bibi it was Sharon: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060908171636AAmyMYythat is not new read what John Foster Dulles said. geez that would have been in the 60's
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060908171636AAmyMYy
Good luck on your new blog. I see it made a splash here already.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer