Republicans Are From Bilderberg, Dems Are From The Illuminati

Every time a political debate ensues, Mick Zano immediately breaks it down to a D vs R dichotomy. There he goes again, “Republicans are nothing but [insert derogatory adjective followed by pithy comment here].” He feels the GOP has become such a mess he wants to move beyond his usual array of insults to outright ignoring them. These bouts of avoidance should only be interrupted for some rotten vegetable lobbing. Bravo, Zano, Bravo. What if I told you both parties are flip sides of the same coin? Or, in this case, a wooden nickel.

A note from Mick Zano: I’ve already addressed Pokey’s points over the years, so I modified the rest of his post into a debate format, because …just because someone might be watching:

 

Pokey McDooris: Just for fun, let me refer to Zano’s last article. Of course he ridicules Republicans for ignoring “key issues” (name them), “credible media sources” (name them), competent journalists (lol, name them), pertinent facts (what is that?).

Mick Zano: I have answered these, and recently.

Credible media sources (please reread):

*Courtesy of Stolen from MediaBias.

Competent journalists (please reread, lol):

For savvy liberal journalists: Jonathon Chait, Juan Cole and Paul Waldman

For impressive Christian conservatives: Damon Linker, or Andrew Sullivan (although he is independent now)

For Republicans with remaining frontal lobe activity: David Frum, David Brooks, or anyone else named David.

Key issues listed here and here.

For pertinent facts you can still watch Fox News, but only through a mirror while upside down.

Pokey McDooris: Both D and R offer a system of political initiation that makes any superficial differences between the two parties irrelevant. The policies of both parties are ‘politics as usual’. Move along there’s nothing to see here. In reality each day we are ever increasing our insolvency and losing our sovereignty. Just keep the people bickering about abortion, gay marriage, social security, climate change, while increasing centralized powers and diminishing individual liberties.

Mick Zano: I made that same point, I just place the blame where it belongs.

“Republicans have weaponized a slew of wedge issues, like abortion and gun control, to rally the uneducated to aid and abet them in shifting all of our resources to a handful of people.” —Me to you Nov 2017

I’m afraid the damage of the Obama & Clinton Administrations v Bush & Trump is far from irrelevant. If one party never makes sense, let’s ditch it. Oh, and your distraction premise is mine! My solution has always been to mitigate the primary distraction first, namely the Grand Old Party. If liberals are heading for fascism at least they’re in a handicap shopping cart, not a Toyota GT-One with unintended acceleration problems (exposé here).

Also, we have both been covering our disappearing civil liberties since this rag’s inception, but if 80% is due to one political party, what’s our first agenda item? Hmmm. Related article here.

Pokey McDooris: Zano goes on to acknowledge that Californian liberals can be a bit on the liberal nutty side, but California liberals “at least discuss issues relevant to this planet.” California has the biggest department of any state in our union. California has the highest poverty rate, highest state tax rate, highest number of illegal immigrants, highest rate of unsheltered homeless people, and the highest illiteracy rate of any state in our union. Maybe California liberals ought to shut up about issues relevant to the planet and start talking about issues relevant to their family, neighborhoods, and local communities.

Mick Zano: Like it or not, we are increasingly becoming a global community (sorry, I was forced to say that), and Oklahoma doesn’t have much of an unsheltered homeless problem for a reason.

Pokey McDooris: That’s the problem with globalist progressives, they got the whole world figured out, with all kinds of massive expensive legislative solutions, but still they can’t figure out how to unclog their shitty pipes. Of course, Zano goes on to repeatedly characterize his right-wing adversaries with amorphous insults like: blinded by the right, collective delusion, leaders dangerously incompetent, and discourse damaging to the public. Of course, Zano makes no attempt to argue his case, because that would involve engaging in discourse dangerous to the public.

Mick Zano: I do make points, but apparently you keep switching back to Hannity.

Pokey McDooris: Zano believes liberal shortcomings cannot be addressed until the Republicans have owned up to all of their errors, evils, and mistakes. But again, Zano. I’m not talking about Republicans or liberals. Look again. The “list of grievances” you attribute to me, were not grievances at all, nor were the comments directed at Democrats. You had previously quoted that guy with 12 characteristics tailor-made-to-Trump as a tyrant. I responded with 10 signs that you might already be subservient to an oligarch.

Mick Zano: Do I have to look again? I’ll just wait for it to be mandatory.

Pokey McDooris: In your last article you said, “Although I may agree with your overall ‘nefarious globalist’ premise, what does that have to do with D vs. R?” Finally, a meaningful line. Maybe my writing is not in vain. My point is that breaking things down to a ‘D vs. R’ is a smokescreen that keeps us distracted from the real issue. Your “Democrats aren’t nearly as stupid, or evil, or tyrannical, or dangerous as Republicans” rhetoric plays right into the hands of the “nefarious globalists.”

Mick Zano: That’s my premise as well! Fine, you can borrow it for a small finder’s fee.

“I’m not really mad at these frightened Foxeteers. I’m more concerned about why we have all these old scared (bleeps) in the first place. It’s those puppet masters that I’d like to call to the carpet.” —Zano

Pokey McDooris: The problem has never been that Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Salinas, the problem is that Neocons are from Bilderberg and Progressives are from the Illuminati, and both groups have paid initiation dues to the Skull and Bones.

Mick Zano: Amen, brother. So in the midterms let’s throw all the bums out and go third party …you know, the Knights Templar.

 

(Visited 115 times, 1 visits today)
Pokey McDooris

Pokey McDooris

Pokey is The Discord's chief theologian and philosopher. Pokey performs an important function here at The Discord, namely by annoying the living shit out of Zano, whenever he submits something. 

Tags:

  11 comments for “Republicans Are From Bilderberg, Dems Are From The Illuminati

  1. Pokey
    April 20, 2018 at 7:55 PM

    I still can’t read that blurry chart. Something about media bias? I don’t find that sort of assessment helpful. It simply allows people to discredit news sources on the “extreme.” All I care about is accurate information that establishes a reality based narrative. Sometime good information comes from extreme sources and sometimes the “center” presents false narratives.

    You did say something pertinent–“pertinent facts.” Yes, that’s what I seek, pertinent facts backed by objective evidence that establishes a reality based narrative. Oftentimes, media gives us a narrative that then seeks facts, rather than allowing the facts to drive the narrative. Other times, media will ignore pertinent facts because those facts do not fit their politically motivated narrative.

    Examples:
    Narrative: 1) Saddam Hussein was involved with the Twin Towers attack. This narrative was implicitly pushed by many in the media without and objective evidence of fact. 2) Another example (I am sure you will agree): Saddam Hussein is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. This narrative was not driven by the facts, but the narrative was first created and then the evidence was sought to support the narrative.

    The phenomenon of media sources purposefully pushing a narrative that is not driven by fact is one of the greatest threats to our ability to self-govern.

    3) A peaceful protest of a reprehensible video spontaneously erupted into violence. By examining the few surviving Clinton emails during this time (among mounds of other evidence), we can see that this narrative was not driven by fact.

    Some people condemned Bush administration’s false narratives but justified Obama administration’s false narratives (or vice versa). That is a telling sign of a biased media.

    4) Michael Brown put his hands up and said “don’t shoot!” before a racist cop murdered him.

    5) High up FBI agents showed political bias in their investigation of Hillary Clinton–is that a biased narrative seeking facts, are there facts that many ignore (James Comey wrote Clinton’s exoneration letter before she was interviewed by FBI) because they do not fit their narrative?

    6) Donald Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Is that narrative driven by fact, or is that narrative seeking facts to support its assumption.

    This month Mueler told Trump’s lawyer that he does not consider Trump to be a criminal target at this point. This month Rod Rosenstein told Trump that he’s not a target in the investigation of his personal lawyer. Then where did the Russia-Trump narrative? Apparently not from the objective evidence of fact.

    • Mick Zano
      April 21, 2018 at 5:27 PM

      Here’s that bias chart, hopefully clearer. http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/
      Dang, again with mongo comment? … a quick false narrative review.

      1.) Correct: I agree the Iraq 9/11 narrative was false.
      2.) Correct: I agree Saddam WMDs (mostly trumped up) and nuclear pursuits false
      3.) Benghazi? Really? Read the NYT not Alex Jones, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html. The planner of the attack initially claimed it was the video that inspired the attack. Conventional wisdom today is that the attacks were already planned, but they moved up the date of the attack due to the video. Thinking the video had nothing to do with the attack is the only true false narrative. Hillary Clinton’s line captures the essence of this debate, “Who cares?” And we needed one investigation to find no wrong doing, not seven. But let’s not take the planner of the attack’s word for it.
      4.) Correct: Michael Brown never said that line that started a movement. If liberal media kept quoting this, knowingly, that is a problem, not anywhere near an invasion of Iraq problem, but disturbing nevertheless. Over the years I have watched the videos of these botched arrests and the lack of consequences and have thereby shifted my opinion from neutral to BLM.
      (These last two is where my zenwrongness theory comes into play because they are open investigations that allow republicans to make hay out of manure. The Philosopher’s turd?)
      5.) Likely Bullshit
      6.) Likely wrong

      I do appreciate your seemingly bipartisan analysis of the news, but you are always missing the overall pattern, namely that false narratives are far less prevalent on the left and far less costly. And, if you did vote for Trump last November, please ask yourself why your “pertinent facts” never lead to any pertinent political insights.

  2. Pokey
    April 22, 2018 at 12:42 PM

    for 6–and your objective evidence and facts that is driving the Donald Trump/Russia collusion narrative?

    • Mick Zano
      April 22, 2018 at 3:12 PM

      Zenwrongness. You must have an inside track with Mr. Mueller. We’d love to see that article. It’s never the crime, it’s the cover up. Again, obstruction and money laundering are likely in the bag, and collusion, with existing evidence plus what Mueller has dug up is still a 50/50 shot. Wait for the Giuliani subpoena. Ha!

      • Pokey
        April 22, 2018 at 7:26 PM

        You avoided my question and my point. Sometimes objective evidence drives a narrative; sometimes a narrative arises and then politically motivated people seek to find evidence to support that narrative. Just like the “Saddam Hussein is seeking nuclear weapons” narrative arose prior to the administration’s seeking of evidence to fit the narrative, the “Trump-Russia conspiracy to steal election” narrative arose with no objective evidence and then his political adversaries sought (and are still seeking) evidence to fit this narrative.

        Both of these matters are obvious to anyone observing these matters without a political bias.

        If I’m wrong, then show me the objective evidence (facts) that drove the narrative.

        • Mick Zano
          April 23, 2018 at 12:54 AM

          There’s way too much to discuss. I’m not avoiding it, it’s complicated, find real journalists and read their assessments. New revelations happen almost daily. Some may not be valid (Trump’s lawyer was in Prague), but many seem quite damning. A picture has already been painted, not the least of which is how at least 6 people on Team Trump met with Russians on the lead up to the election and then lied about it. At some point Mueller will release a damning report on obstruction. There will be a move toward Jared Kushner for shady business dealings to put more pressure on ass-clown, and then the WikiLeaks/Russian bot bit will ensue, who knew what when. Just coordinating with WikiLeaks would look real bad, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to know they knew something before anyone else (that part will likely involve Mr. Giuliani, among others). I truly hope the Stormy Daniels stuff doesn’t blow up this presidency before Mueller gets a chance to work his magic, but it is a bit of race. How many indictments does it take to get to the center of a Trumpy pop? We’ll find out. I am still holding out hope for an annulment. Proving full blown collusion is the hardest part of this investigation, but it’s probably the last best hope for our republic. If clear collusion is proven, someone call Madam President.

  3. pokey
    April 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM

    It’s possible that a politically motivated narrative seeking evidence does find the evidence to prove the narrative; I’m simply saying that there is a difference in the motives and methods of a politically motivated narrative seeking validation and method of discovering objective facts that drive a narrative. In the “Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election narrative” that has been pushed for over a year, there was no objective evidence that generated that narrative. Those people pushing the narrative have since tried to “dig up” or legally pressure people to provide any suggestive circumstances that support the narrative and they hope (now desperately hope) to find objective facts to prove the narrative is true. Maybe they will (I doubt it at this point)

    Regardless, the method and tactics are reprehensible and harmful to our nation regardless of the side that engages in these tactics. And the more Trump’s side can show the illegal tactics of the politically motivated FBI agents, the more everyday Americans will see this for what it is.

    • Mick Zano
      April 23, 2018 at 4:41 PM

      You’re right, not protecting our elections or even acknowledging Russian interference is really the best way to protect our Democracy. As for ‘digging up’ and finding unrelated wrongdoing, you’re thinking of Benghazi. If you don’t think there was smoke involving the lead up to the Russia probe, again, it’s another example of how poorly republicans process information. Our criminal president needs protecting, tear down our intelligence agencies! It’s so ridiculous. Let’s investigate the investigators. riiiight. It really comes down to perspective and republicans don’t have any. This probe was given the green light during a republican super majority, and you know how prone republicans are to investigating themselves needlessly. Ha! There was smoke at the onset of Benghazi as well, but that turned out to be actual smoke.

      Investigating criminals is not ‘hurting our country’, it’s when we mistakenly elect them to office.

      • Pokey
        April 24, 2018 at 8:37 AM

        Let me give you an example of objective facts driving a narrative, as opposed to (what you’ve been doing) supporting a narrative that is seeking (digging up) facts to support its assumptions. Last week, the Office of Inspector General released a report that demonstrates the objective facts that Andrew McCabe disclosed info. to the media that violated policy because it was “done in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.” One disclosure was done “to rebut a narrative that had been developing following a story in the WSJ on Oct. 23, 2016, that questioned McCabe’s impartiality involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” The story in WSJ had stated that a political action committee run by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virgina Democratic Party collectively donated nearly $670,000 to the senate campaign of the McCabe’s wife. The WSJ story states that McAuliff is “an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.” McCabe later helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s email use.

        The report goes on to claim that when McCaber was questioned about these leaks he lied “at least 4 time, 3 times under oath.” The report also shows contradictory statements made by McCabe and his boss, James Comey.

        From these recently surfaced objective facts revealed by the Inspector General report, a narrative is driven (based on objective facts) that shows how higher ups in the DOJ violated department protocol and the law in an effort to protect Hillary Clinton during the investigation into her private email use as well as alleged Clinton Foundation misconduct.

        The narrative of “Trump conspired with Russia to steal 2016 election” did not arise from objective facts; no, coincidentally it first arose from illegal (and apparently politically motivated) leaks by higher ups in the DOJ to an (apparently politically motivated) press.

        Do you see the difference?

        Oh, yeah, there was smoke all right. But are you unbiased enough to follow the narrative of that smoke back to the objective facts of the actual fire?

        You already know Trump’s a criminal? Based on what objective facts? On April 3, 2018 the Washington Post was the first paper to headline “Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target.”
        But you already know he’s criminal–that’s the narrative you’ve been fed. And you want to believe that narrative so bad, that your willing to keep digging for something anything to back it up.

        There is simple fire of objective facts that the Inspector General report provides and then there are the complicated suggestive circumstantial smoke that the “resistance” has been blowing.

        Truth is not about politics or power.

        You don’t have to like Trump or support Trump in order to accept the truth of this matter (Loretta Lynch asked me to use the word ‘matter’ here).

      • Mick Zano
        April 24, 2018 at 6:40 PM

        Holy crap, Pokey, I am turning your other 10 page comment into a feature.

  4. pokey
    April 25, 2018 at 2:24 PM

    better still cut it up into a trilogy–The Lord of the Illuminati Trilogy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *