Time for Another Time-Out

Every so often, Your’s Truly has to send in the referee to break up a fracas. Or simply to set a reset. Even chart a new course. This is one of those times.

However, it’s not because of the intensity of the commentary (I like that) but the volume, the sheer number of comments that is to say.

Usually on Monomakhos, I have a manageable number of comments greeting me at the end of a long workday. Not anymore. The number of comments has exploded and a lot of things get lost in the shuffle. I simply can’t read every one anymore. And I want to read them as well as respond.

Please understand, I’m certainly not censorious. I very much believe in the First Amendment. Unlike many blogs, I intend to keep comments open, that’s what sets this blog apart from others –particularly those on the Left. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I very much enjoy reading each and every comment, even those that I don’t agree with —especially those that are critical of me and my beliefs. I’ve learned a lot from everybody here. And I mean that.

But things have gotten somewhat out of hand. Therefore, for my own sanity, beginning today, I am instituting a new policy: everyone is entitled to a maximum of three comments per day. They can be as long as you want (although I would prefer no more than 500 words per comment) and they can address any issue, rebut any criticism, pontificate, etc. If possible, I’d like for them to address the topic but my feet on set in stone on that.

Here are the caveats:

1. Nothing libelous will be allowed. So far, I’ve been very effective in this regard (or so I hope).

2. Vituperation is not libel. If you feel the need to wax eloquently or vociferously, do so. I only ask that you remember that we are Christians and all are fallen.

3. Anonymous comments that address make serious accusations against named individuals will be banned. If you have something to say about someone that is factual, then sign your name to it. According to an ancient legal maxim, “the truth is absolute protection against libel and slander.” So, if what you are saying about X doing Y is true, then you have nothing to fear.

Just to be absolutely clear, I will continue to post anonymous or pseudonymous comments. I received a lot of heat for that awhile back but the very real fear of exposure was significant enough for me to to allow people the cloak of secrecy. Especially when it comes to corruption in high places. As a rule, general comments tend to stand alone –it doesn’t matter whether Bob R Smith signs his name to them or Publius. I reiterate: anonymous comments will continue to be allowed provided they are general, on-topic and not accusatory, even if the accusation is true.

So why am I doing this? Mainly because I want to be able to read each and every comment –for my own edification if nothing else. I also believe that if a commentator feels the pressure of knowing that he/she will be allowed only three comments per day, then he/she will sharpen his thoughts and present them in a more cogent manner to the benefit of all.

I trust that this will be agreeable to all.

P.S. I survived the earthquake just fine. It’s epicenter was in Pawnee, OK, about 80 miles due west of me. Thank you all for your concern.

About GShep

Comments

  1. Good and God bless you, George Michalopulos!

  2. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Good. It’s time for the cowards to leave, or put their name to their comments. Let see what happens.

    • Estonian Slovak says

      Sorry, Peter, I’m very much one of those cowards who upsets you. Just ponder this: why does George, an OCA man, allow one chronic poster to slander and denigrate a retired Bishop of the same church of which he is a member?

      • George Michalopulos says

        ES, I’ll let Peter speak for himself but if I may, I don’t think he’s exacerbated by anonymous posters per se but only those who deign to make assertions that are contrary to Tradition, cast aspersions at people and/or don’t document their sources.

        As for myself, I allow as much free speech as is possible. (Slander and libel not being “free speech.”) When I said that “vituperative” speech does not equal slander/libel, I should have said “vociferous” instead. Some of the criticism leveled at His Grace falls under the rubric of “vociferous” but he gives as good as he gets.

        I trust that this clears things up. I for one, like your commentary and hope you continue to do so, as well as many others who post anonymously on this blog. I will continue to post these (and all comments) so long as everybody abides by the new parameters.

        • Reality Checker says

          Vituperation is not libel. If you feel the need to wax eloquently or vociferously, . . .

          Whether Michael Warren “waxes vociferously”* or not I couldn’t say, since one cannot be privy, via this medium, to the qualities of the discourse uttered while he polishes his vehicle or his shoes. What I can say for sure is that he is this blog’s poster child for vituperation (i.e., bitter and abusive speech). Vociferous, ridiculously repetitious, almost always utterly unfounded and sanctimonious vituperation. He’s a master caster of aspersions** too.

          About “documenting sources,” may I suggest breitbart.com, infowars.com, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and Matt Drudge shouldn’t count? I’d avoid Return of Kings and Stormfront, too, if I were you. And Sputnik. I could add a lot more to the list but these exclusions would do away with most of your sourcing.

          * The correct expression is “wax eloquent or vociferous” (adjective, not adverb — the implied subject is qualified, not the predicate).
          ** You “cast aspersions on,” not at.

          Cue Michael Warren: add grammar Nazi to the list of my many evils.

          • George Michalopulos says

            RC, facts stand on their own. Just because you don’t like Breitbart or Drudge or whoever doesn’t make it wrong. I could just as easily turn this on you and say because you hide behind the cloak of anonymity your arguments have no validity. But I won’t say that. As long as your facts are evident then you are free to assert them. The people at Breitbart et al have the same right. And the fact that they sign their names to them gives them greater weight.

            • Reality Checker says

              Facts do not “stand on their own,” they have to be interpreted and fit into a framework of meaning before they become intelligible. “On their own” they’re seldom more than brute data. But even this begs the question: how do you know they are genuinely real, true, factual facts?

              A closely related question: By what criteria do you judge the credibility reliability authority of the sources for your facts, of the information you use to assemble the model of reality in your head? If you favor a source because it consistently produces information that you want to hear, that tickles your ears and pleases you and confirms you in your biases, that’s very far from being a sound, honest basis for choosing a “source.”

              In fact that’s just asking for being deceived. If you are fed false information by a source and then parrot the misinformation, or even parrot actively disseminated disinformation, you have made yourself an accomplice in deception. If you do so knowingly, or if you do so when you should have known better or had sufficient reason to know that a source was unreliable, then you are in danger of simply lying, more or less consciously. Doing this under the cloak of some self-appointed spokesmanhood for certain Orthodox Christians or even for Orthodox Christianity itself (to outsiders, say), or even merely as a source of information for the “Orthosphere,” compounds the offense.

              This is a problem with you constantly. For years and years. In the couple of weeks I’ve posted here under this pseudonym I’ve demonstrated (and documented) quite a few cases where claims made in your essays and comments were demonstrably false.

              I’ll give you a very recent example. Only a few days ago you asserted falsely that Nancy Pelosi’s husband was president of Monsanto

              . . . He also didn’t know about Nancy Pelosi and how her husband is president of Monsanto and how Putin screwed Monsanto over.

              I replied, proving irrefutably that this claim was false, i.e., that your “fact” was no such thing:
              http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/monsanto-leadership.aspx

              (A year or so ago, in an essay, you asserted a similar falsehood: that he was the CEO of Monsanto:)
              https://www.monomakhos.com/what-did-you-do-in-the-great-wwii/

              Paul Pelosi does not have, nor has he ever had, any association with Monsanto.

              You wrote above:

              I could just as easily turn this on you and say because you hide behind the cloak of anonymity your arguments have no validity. But I won’t say that. As long as your facts are evident then you are free to assert them.

              Now, I hope you can grasp that the certainty of my proof of your error is utterly independent of my anonymity. My facts are evident. Therefore I’d like to invite you to admit your error, one you made in the apparent service of your bias, of your “narrative.” I’ll credit you with the excuse that you may have had some “source” for this false claim, that you didn’t simply make it up. But you have a clear responsibility to issue a retraction.

              • Reality Checker says

                I chose this one because it was recent and flagrant, and because as almost always you left entirely ignored and unacknowledged a QED demonstration of your falsehood; you left the non-fact-asserted-as-fact “in the record” uncorrected. (You’re guilty of this all the time, in the face of corrections offered by many correspondents, and you have been for years.) Another reason to showcase it is that it is an illustrative specimen of precisely the sort of conspiracy theory looniness and inaccuracy for which breitbart.com is infamous. (I don’t know if that was your “source,” since you didn’t document it, but it’s the sort of crap one finds there.)

                Alex Jones, another of your confidently cited “sources” (Infowars.com & prisonplanet.com) is an even more egregious case. That guy is certifiable.

                It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that at best you lack much genuine interest in the accuracy and factual reliability of your output. One might even be forgiven for wondering how much respect you have for truth.

              • George Michalopulos says

                I may have been wrong about Monsanto. One of my sources who gave me that information told me that it has since been scrubbed or “memory holed.” However he is a major shareholder in Starkist Tuna (among others) which is part of Monsanto.

                And no, you’re wrong about facts. They do stand on their own. The earth is a sphere. Full stop. Yes, context matters ultimately but not in situ. Consider the homicide of an individual. There is a corpse, there is a perpetrator. Context only resolves intent. Was it manslaughter, murder or justifiable homicide? The incident happened irrespective of the intent or the surrounding circumstances. The victim is no “less dead” if he died by a car accident. If we took your critique to its logical conclusion we would have to soften the facts almost into non-existence, simply because we didn’t like the actors involved. We see this same attitude displayed for the victims of the Holodomyr or the Armenian genocide as opposed to those that died in the Holocaust.

                You may not like Alex Jones (I find him rather cheesy myself) but what is his batting average compared to The New York Times? I dare say Jones has never manufactured news or actively suppressed the same.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Also, when I was pre-med Kinsey was trotted out as gospel. We now know that his methodology was dubious at best. Yes, context matters, particularly when we are talking about research done in bad faith.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    Geoerge! Please let us know the name of your school that “trotted out” Kinsey as “gospel!”

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Pretty much anywhere and everywhere. Not only pop culture but most post-secondary classrooms. (I graduated in 77 so we didn’t have sex education). For the record, I took a B.S. in Health Sciences (read: pre-med) at the University of Tulsa in 1981. I even audited a course in human sexuality. In Pharmacy School, we had several classes in human sexuality taught by a psychiatrist during second year in Health and the Environment.

                      In every instance (pre-med and pharmacy) Kinsey’s research was trotted out and promoted as gospel by lecturers. I dare say that the lecturers (all PhDs and MDs) knew about the fraudulence of Kinsey or at least suspected it. What they never did was question it or indicate that it was “controversial” –which is usually an academic code-word for “I gotta teach you this because it’s institutional orthodoxy but I personally don’t put too much stock in its scientific thoroughness.” “I at least got to get it out there in a way that I can cover my ass and nobody will complain to the Dean that I’m some religious fundamentalist.”

                • Reality Checker says

                  If we took your critique to its logical conclusion we would have to soften the facts almost into non-existence, simply because we didn’t like the actors involved. We see this same attitude displayed for the victims of the Holodomyr or the Armenian genocide as opposed to those that died in the Holocaust.

                  You would first have to understand my point before you could comment on it, a problem you illustrate above. I’ll take some blame for the misunderstanding since I could have been clearer and more explicit. As you rightly note, brute data are not altogether without value, but their meaningfulness and relevance to us always depend on their being plugged into an appropriate framework, a logos, and then being properly interpreted with respect to that logos. Some frameworks are objectively better than others in that they are more coherent, inclusive and predictive. Fitting facts into a logos is very far from “softening” them, whatever that might mean. If anything they’re fixed in amber, as it were. Otherwise they just flit around aimlessly like intoxicated prehistoric bugs.

                  But such higher level questions of hermeneutics and epistemology are matters separate from my much simpler point: the quality of our information sources matters. These can differ radically: Some are far more authoritative, reliable, trustworthy, accurate and objective than others.

                  You wrote:

                  You may not like Alex Jones (I find him rather cheesy myself) but what is his batting average compared to The New York Times? I dare say Jones has never manufactured news or actively suppressed the same.

                  I’ll say it again: comments like that are emissions from a radically alien episteme. Such signals are not at all auspicious of much success in meaningful dialogue.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    RC, I very much appreciate your argument here. I see that we can come to some agreement on many things, particularly in regards to epistemology.

                    Having said that, much of the data that I or Mr Warren (or Dr Stankovitch or whoever) puts out must not be necessarily discounted by the fact or because of its provenance. Jones is cheesy, so is most of what is found on Youtube. Sometimes they’re sloppy. But then again, so is much of the Mainstream Media. That doesn’t make it untrue.

                    Quite simply, we live in an information age in which the regnant informational orthodoxy is no different from what obtained in the Soviet Bloc. Case in point: a CNN news-story in which a man rescued a woman was edited to blur out the words “TRUMP 2016” which were written on his tee shirt. Another case: the liberal press is excorciating Matt Lauer because he did’t kiss Hillary’s ass during the recent presidential forum. I could cite several more blatant examples.

                    My point? As in the Soviet Bloc, the only way that any truthful information can get out today is by samizdat. To the extent that the alt.right (or the alt.left, think Counterpunch) can get it out, then so be it. We can quibble about misspellings, minor errata or production values all we want but the story either stands on its own or it doesn’t. If it’s mostly true, then we should run with it but be aware of the intentions of its purveyors.

                    Remember, the semen-stained blue dress was first reported on Drudge in the first week of the Lewinsky scandal. And then it died for several months because it was viewed as too “out there,” and was hurting all other reportage on the scandal. Then sometime in Sept it was revived and shown to be true. Within two months, Clinton was impeached.

                    The initial story was outrageous and we had no context –but it was true.

                • Reality Checker says

                  You clarified: “One of my sources who gave me that information told me that it has since been scrubbed or “memory holed.”

                  I see. One is immediately struck by the stark implausibility of the scenario you purport, and on so many levels. Questions present themselves at once: Scrubbed by whom, how, when, from where — and why, pray?
                  May I gently recommend scrubbing this “source” from your list, too?

                  “However he is a major shareholder in Starkist Tuna (among others) which is part of Monsanto.”

                  Ummm … entirely wrong, again. The parent company of Starkist Tuna is the Dongwon Group, headquarters: Seoul, South Korea. (Monsanto appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with this entity.) Now, whether Mr. Pelosi might own shares of Dongwon Group, I couldn’t say. Nor, I’d wager lots and lots, could you. Nor could your less than reliable “source,” probably.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Actually, I can. Paul Pelosi owns $17 million in Star-Kist stock. For the record, Star-Kist is headquartered in San Francisco and is owned by DelMonte Foods (which is a major contributor to Nancy Pelosi).

                    It is a major employer in American Samoa (up to 75% of the workforce). In January 2007, when the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from this increase so that DelMont wouldn’t have to pay the higher wage.

                    It get’s better: when a bailout was passed in 2012, Pelosi aded an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million for an “economic development credit” for American Samoa. (Source: “No Matter Who Wins the Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits,” (Josh Sager, theprogressivecynic.com, Oct 1, 2012.)

                    The nub: Star-Kist’s American division is headquarted in San Francisco and Pelosi has strived mightily to represent the activities of most multi-national corporations which are based in San Francisco (nothing wrong with that by the way. But at least let’s not pretend that we’re the only virgins in the whorehouse.)

                    • Reality Checker says

                      Fascinating! Four claims in your first paragraph: all false. Two are easily proved to be total fabrications, i.e., outright lies. One is 3/4 false (and its fractional factness is entirely irrelevant to any point I can fathom). The last claim hasn’t been true for 8 years, though you use the present tense. And even when it was true (during the Bush Administration), the implications you seek to conjure up from it are unsupported by any evidence. Proof below, all documented by primary sources or by an unimpeachable, independent, non-partisan fact-checking foundation under the aegis of the Annenberg Public Policy Center — not even close to being a “liberal” outfit.

                      George is confused about his competence, and deceived:

                      Actually, I can. Paul Pelosi owns $17 million in Star-Kist stock.

                      Actually, no, you cannot. But now I can. A Pants-on-Fire-False, total fabrication.

                      No $17 Million in Stock
                      To start, it’s simply not true that Pelosi’s husband owns $17 million worth of Del Monte stock, giving her a “corrupt” motive to aid the company. (Nor does he own such an interest in Del Monte’s primary shareholder, Heinz, as alleged in some versions of this message.)
                      We traced this false claim back to a 2007 article in the conservative NewsBusters blog, which attributed it only to a single, unsupported sentence in Wikipedia’s article on Del Monte. That’s hardly an authoritative source. Wikipedia articles may be written or edited by any user, making the site notorious for its vulnerability to false entries, pranks and vandalism. NewsBusters editors later admitted that its claim “has not otherwise been verified” and that “there is reason to believe that the claim of such ownership interest on the part of Paul Pelosi is suspect.” Actually, NewsBusters fell for a Wikipedia hoax. The sentence about Paul Pelosi was added to the Del Monte Foods article on Jan. 12, 2007, the same day that the NewsBusters article was published. Within six hours, a Wikipedia editor flagged it as “not verified” and “unsourced” and then quickly deleted it altogether. Pelosi’s 2007 financial disclosure statement, which lists between $9 million and $11 million in stocks owned by her husband, shows no StarKist, Del Monte or Heinz stock holdings. Neither do her 2006 or 2005 reports. Filing a false disclosure statement is a serious offense, carrying a fine of up to $10,000, and we’ve seen no evidence that Pelosi’s report is inaccurate.”

                      George is confused again:

                      For the record, Star-Kist is headquartered in San Francisco and is owned by DelMonte Foods

                      Del Monte Foods, Inc. sold StarKist to Dongwon Industries, Inc. in 2008. Del Monte’s HQ are in Pittsburgh and in Walnut Creek, CA (the East Bay, not in Pelosi’s 12th District). StarKist has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Dongwon since 2008. Its American corporate office is in Pittsburgh, and its HQ is in Seoul, South Korea. Dongwon has no connection with Monsanto, now or ever. Del Monte Foods, Inc. has no connection with Monsanto, now or ever.

                      Deceived, George evidently desires to disseminate deception, though he should know better by now:

                      . . . (which[Del Monte] is a major contributor to Nancy Pelosi).

                      Pants-on-Fire False. Total fabrication.

                      No ‘Major Contributor’
                      It is also untrue that Del Monte is a “major contributor” to Pelosi, or a contributor at all. The company doesn’t rank among her top contributors in any year, and neither does the National Food Processors Association PAC, to which Del Monte contributes. A search of contribution records covering the last 18 years shows that Pelosi has not received any contributions of $200 or more from Del Monte or StarKist employees.”

                      George claims:

                      It is a major employer in American Samoa (up to 75% of the workforce). In January 2007, when the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from this increase so that DelMont wouldn’t have to pay the higher wage.

                      The first sentence is true! Amazing! The second, however, is probably false, although no evidence either way is available on this one. Not so amazing. For a detailed explanation and discussion of the known facts, read the paragraph headed by “No Evidence of Favoritism,” halfway down this page.

                      The masochistic George asserts:

                      It get’s better: when a bailout was passed in 2012, Pelosi aded an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million for an “economic development credit” for American Samoa. (Source: “No Matter Who Wins the Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits,” (Josh Sager, theprogressivecynic.com, Oct 1, 2012.)

                      Fascinating! First of all, the “source” you cite here contains not a single word about either of the Pelosis, American Samoa, or any “economic development credit.” Scratching my head here, I have to assume you cited it because you were just trying to drag Monsanto down your rabbit hole somehow — maybe you were going for a sort of “clang association.” Although that wicked corporation and its DC connections are indeed the subject of the article, you’ve epically failed to tie Monsanto, in any way, to the Pelosis, to Del Monte Foods or to Dongwon Industries, Inc. Your “sources” are either a ridiculous joke or when substantive they are entirely immaterial to whatever it is you are struggling to say, in your inimitably, absurdly, scattershot way. LOL

                      After admitting you “might have been wrong about Monsanto” you then turned around and in the same paragraph contradicted yourself:” . . .However he is a major shareholder in Starkist Tuna (among others) which is part of Monsanto.”
                      No, HE ISN’T! And no, IT IS NOT!

                      Retract your horseshite, George. You don’t possess even the shadow of a journalist’s competence. You’ve been proving that, and nothing else, for years.

                    • Reality Checker says

                      Fascinating! Four claims in your first paragraph: all false. Two are easily proved to be total fabrications, i.e., outright lies. One is 3/4 false (and its fractional factness is entirely irrelevant to any point I can fathom). The last claim hasn’t been true for 8 years, though you use the present tense. And even when it was true (during the Bush Administration), the implications you seek to conjure up from it are unsupported by any evidence. Proof below, all documented by primary sources or by an unimpeachable, independent, non-partisan fact-checking foundation under the aegis of the Annenberg Public Policy Center — not even close to being a “liberal” outfit.

                      George is confused about his competence, and deceived:

                      Actually, I can. Paul Pelosi owns $17 million in Star-Kist stock.

                      Actually, no, you cannot. But now I can. A Pants-on-Fire-False, total fabrication.

                      No $17 Million in Stock
                      To start, it’s simply not true that Pelosi’s husband owns $17 million worth of Del Monte stock, giving her a “corrupt” motive to aid the company. (Nor does he own such an interest in Del Monte’s primary shareholder, Heinz, as alleged in some versions of this message.)
                      We traced this false claim back to a 2007 article in the conservative NewsBusters blog, which attributed it only to a single, unsupported sentence in Wikipedia’s article on Del Monte. That’s hardly an authoritative source. Wikipedia articles may be written or edited by any user, making the site notorious for its vulnerability to false entries, pranks and vandalism. NewsBusters editors later admitted that its claim “has not otherwise been verified” and that “there is reason to believe that the claim of such ownership interest on the part of Paul Pelosi is suspect.” Actually, NewsBusters fell for a Wikipedia hoax. The sentence about Paul Pelosi was added to the Del Monte Foods article on Jan. 12, 2007, the same day that the NewsBusters article was published. Within six hours, a Wikipedia editor flagged it as “not verified” and “unsourced” and then quickly deleted it altogether. Pelosi’s 2007 financial disclosure statement, which lists between $9 million and $11 million in stocks owned by her husband, shows no StarKist, Del Monte or Heinz stock holdings. Neither do her 2006 or 2005 reports. Filing a false disclosure statement is a serious offense, carrying a fine of up to $10,000, and we’ve seen no evidence that Pelosi’s report is inaccurate.”

                      George is confused again:

                      For the record, Star-Kist is headquartered in San Francisco and is owned by DelMonte Foods

                      Del Monte Foods, Inc. sold StarKist to Dongwon Industries, Inc. in 2008. Del Monte’s HQ are in Pittsburgh and in Walnut Creek, CA (the East Bay, not in Pelosi’s 12th District). StarKist has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Dongwon since 2008. Its American corporate office is in Pittsburgh, and its HQ is in Seoul, South Korea. Dongwon has no connection with Monsanto, now or ever. Del Monte Foods, Inc. has no connection with Monsanto, now or ever.

                      Deceived, George evidently desires to disseminate deception, though he should know better by now:

                      . . . (which[Del Monte] is a major contributor to Nancy Pelosi).

                      Pants-on-Fire False. Total fabrication.

                      No ‘Major Contributor
                      It is also untrue that Del Monte is a “major contributor” to Pelosi, or a contributor at all. The company doesn’t rank among her top contributors in any year, and neither does the National Food Processors Association PAC, to which Del Monte contributes. A search of contribution records covering the last 18 years shows that Pelosi has not received any contributions of $200 or more from Del Monte or StarKist employees.”

                      George claims:

                      It is a major employer in American Samoa (up to 75% of the workforce). In January 2007, when the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from this increase so that DelMont wouldn’t have to pay the higher wage.

                      The first sentence is true! Amazing! The second, however, is probably false, although no evidence either way is available on this one. Not so amazing. For a detailed explanation and discussion of the known facts, read the paragraph headed by “No Evidence of Favoritism,” halfway down this page.

                      The masochistic George asserts:

                      It get’s better: when a bailout was passed in 2012, Pelosi aded an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million for an “economic development credit” for American Samoa. (Source: “No Matter Who Wins the Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits,” (Josh Sager, theprogressivecynic.com, Oct 1, 2012.)

                      Fascinating! First of all, the “source” you cite above contains not one word about either of the Pelosis, American Samoa, or any “economic development credit.” Scratching my head here, I have to assume you cited it because you were just trying to drag Monsanto down your rabbit hole somehow — maybe you were going for a sort of “clang association.” Although that wicked corporation and its DC connections are indeed the subject of the article, you’ve epically failed to tie Monsanto, in any way, to the Pelosis, to Del Monte Foods or to Dongwon Industries, Inc. Your “sources” are either a ridiculous joke or when substantive they are entirely immaterial to whatever it is you are struggling to say, in your inimitably, absurdly, scattershot way. LOL

                      After admitting you “might have been wrong about Monsanto” you then turned around and in the same paragraph contradicted yourself:” . . .However he is a major shareholder in Starkist Tuna (among others) which is part of Monsanto.”
                      No, HE ISN’T! And no, IT IS NOT!

                      Retract your horseshite, George. You don’t possess the shadow of a journalist’s instincts. You’ve been proving that, but little else, for years.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      RC, your naivete never fails to charm me. You not only don’t understand Congressional earmarking but you don’t understand the world of high finance and multi-national corporations. If you assume that Congressmen don’t adhere to the pecuniary considerations of their major donors, then we really have no basis for debate. And if you aren’t aware of the problem of memory-holing/404-error land, then we really do have a problem.

                      The “headquarters” as well as ownership of the various multi-nationals are fluid things. Mostly the movement of HQ’s are almost always the result of rent-seeking, that is to say the searching out of more favorable tax regimes. Often this does not result in the actual movement of physical facilities but the mere rebranding of a change in address.

                      I’ve seen this in the practice of retail pharmacy going on over 30 years now. I used to be able to know the top 20 drug companies, their logos, products and where they were headquartered and manufactured. None of those companies exist today except in some other iteration either because of merger, selling of stock or dissolution. Every now and then I’ll pick up a bottle a drug from long ago from the shelf and find that it’s headquarters is in Denmark but the actual pills were made in Croatia. That same product’s point of manufacture will likely change in another year or so as will the name of its manufacturer. In many instances, the actual factory where it is made is nowhere found on the logo anymore. Sometimes it never moved at all, just the name of the company changed, its board of directors, and/or the company’s office address. To actually find it, you’d have to open the package insert and try to read lines of font that are microscopic at best.

                      That’s anecdotal I realize, but it goes on far more that you would know. (I assume you’re not employed in some private sector job engaged in the selling of actual products. If I’m wrong, I apologize.)

                      As for the incestuous relationship between Star-Kist, American Samoa, the Congress and earmarking in general, if you have problems with what I wrote, take it up with the source in question.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    Fact Checker, I don’t think George will acknowledge these falsities, but continue his “basic” argument even when his premisses are shown up as they’have been, by you. No Monsanto connection, no such investments by Pelosi’s husband—WHOOSH!
                    You should save this CONFESSION, though—it explains a lot:
                    “Having said that, much of the data that I or Mr Warren (or Dr Stankovitch or whoever) puts out must not be necessarily discounted by the fact or because of its provenance. Jones is cheesy, so is most of what is found on Youtube. Sometimes they’re sloppy. But then again, so is much of the Mainstream Media. That doesn’t make it untrue.”
                    CLASSIC! EVEN FUNNY! No wonder Father George gave up!

                    • Reality Checker says

                      Dr. Stankovich said it, Vladyko: lowering the bar for accuracy and truth is just asking for chaos. I had some trouble parsing George’s confession but I think the basic gist of it may have emerged in his comment on Alex Jones vis-a-vis the NY Times, too.

                      You may not like Alex Jones (I find him rather cheesy myself) but what is his batting average compared to The New York Times? I dare say Jones has never manufactured news or actively suppressed the same.

                      I mean, I’m far from thinking everything in the NYT is objective truth but … that’s just right off the wall. And yet hope springs eternal that some due discrimination may yet blossom. Until I get burned out again anyway. I miss Fr. George too.

          • Michael Warren says

            The sour grapes of a defeated and irrelevant, liberal russophobe. Four letter word rebuttals and straw men keep a comin. Yes, we are quite aware if NY Times, MSNBC or Huffpo refuse to report it, you are incapable of addressing it. Next.

            Ridiculous liberal.

            How many times have you communed at the Uniate altar of banderofascism? That’s the sieg heil question of the day. Attend any torchlight tributes to the Nurnburg Rallies in Lvov or at your local UGCC parish lately?

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              But you are STILL not Russian, Michael Warren.. Russophiles disagree with your dragging Russianness through the mud with your mindless expostulations!

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        George says:

        “…but only those who deign to make assertions that are contrary to Tradition, cast aspersions at people and/or don’t document their sources.”

        Yup that sums it up.

        Peter

  3. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Excellent change!

    • George Michalopulos says

      Thank you, Your Grace. I must say that it was a pleasure to not have to slog through 100+ comments. Also, it’s making it easier for me to reply. I trust everybody else will agree.

  4. Thomas Barker says

    In light of the observation that some contributors will surely perish on this lean allotment, I hereby yield two of my comments per day to the highly esteemed rhetorician M Warren.

  5. On a positive note: Vladimir Putin receiving the Holy Mysteries!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GiTF2vAvKQ
    Fr. David

    • Reality Checker says

      Fr. David, do you know if V. Putin has communed before this? Since August or October of 2006, say.

  6. Mark E. Fisus says

    You’ve posted some really controversial topics, so in a sense you brought this on yourself. Maybe you should post pablum everyone agrees with and you won’t have to deal with comment deluge.

    Haha, just kidding. Bring on the popcorn.

  7. This is tough, but fair. Thanks, George. It’s been much easier to catch up on comments for the past few days.

  8. Only the Orthodox . . .

    This is the type of frank and open forum that might have saved America had one been conducted nationally regarding race, gender, Islam, etc.

    I have to hand it to George, at least in his little corner of the world, we’re gonna air the whole megilla out, all da dirty laundry, full tilt boogie, damn the torpedoes . . .

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And the Light shines, the darkness never having overcome it . . .

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      What you will find is many Orthodox who worship a variety of gods, and only a few that worship and follow the one True God.

      To quote the late Fr. Hopko: “the apostasy is going along quite well.” He says this in the video commentary he did on the Apocalypse at St. Elias church. The video is on you tube.

      Peter

  9. Reality Checker says

    As for the incestuous relationship between Star-Kist, American Samoa, the Congress and earmarking in general, if you have problems with what I wrote, take it up with the source in question.

    You’re pretty shameless. “The source in question” has nothing to say about any of that. Here’s a link to it: simply do a search for the words, StarKist, Star-Kist, Samoa, Pelosi. I guess what I suspected is true; you probably cited an article that’s entirely immaterial to anything you were claiming merely because it had the word Monsanto in its title. All you’re showing is that you’re comfortable hanging out at a really low level of intellectual integrity. You should be ashamed.

    It get’s better: when a bailout was passed in 2012, Pelosi aded an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million for an “economic development credit” for American Samoa. (Source: “No Matter Who Wins the Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits,” (Josh Sager, theprogressivecynic.com, Oct 1, 2012.)

    • Reality Checker says

      As usual, Mr. Michalopulos tries to slither away unaccountable when confronted with the facts that controvert his phony assertions. We observe the typical squid ink squirts of irrelevance, non sequiturs and, sometimes, total nonsense and worse, intended to obfuscate and deflect the force of very basic rebuttals. But it won’t work.

      Cleaning up his HS paddies:

      FALSE: Michalopulos’s assertion that Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul is Monsanto’s CEO — or its President, in the year-earlier version of his “narrative.” Nor has P. Pelosi ever held any office of any kind whatsoever at Monsanto, now or in the past. Therefore, his homely anecdote re: clueing in that wealthy liberal during his morning visits to the YMCA about “Nancy Pelosi and how her husband is president of Monsanto and how Putin screwed Monsanto over” was just a ludicrous fabrication of nada. He has yet to admit either that he just made all that nonsense up and/or that he was hogtied by one of his absurd “sources.” [1]

      FALSE: Michalopulos’s assertion that Nancy Pelosi had any personal financial interest (or any political campaign finance interest) in Del Monte Foods, Inc. (StarKist Tuna’s corporate owner until 2008) or Heinz Foods (Del Monte’s major stockholder). Where their offices were (in Del Monte’s case, near but outside of her district, in Walnut Creek, CA) is irrelevant static when not inaccurate or out-of-date in his telling. Michalopulos has yet to admit to spreading disinformation and recant.

      FALSE: Michalopulos’s assertion that Paul Pelosi owned $17 million in “StarKist Tuna” stock (thereby implying that his wife had personal financial interest in corruptly swaying laws in favor of StarKist or Del Monte Foods, its parent corporation). Pelosi owned no shares in Del Monte or StarKist, according to US Treasury documents (their jointly filed tax returns). Michalopulos has yet to admit to spreading disinformation and recant.

      Finally, the e-mail implies that Pelosi added a new credit for American Samoa’s economic development to the bailout bill. In fact, the bill extended an existing development credit first established by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi was instrumental in drawing up the House version of the bailout amendment, though records don’t show exactly who wrote what. But the extension of American Samoa economic relief also appears in the Senate version, before it was sent to the House for consideration.

      ~~~
      [1] “. . .He also didn’t know about Nancy Pelosi and how her husband is president of Monsanto and how Putin screwed Monsanto over.” {cf. paragraph 6 in his post}

      • George Michalopulos says

        RC, I stand by what I said about Paul Pelosi. Admittedly, I’m at a loss because I can’t put my finger on the source for this (I could a year ago). Presently, one of my researchers is looking into it. I’ll get back to you on that: you (and the rest of my readers) deserve it.

        Having said that, my point regarding the incestuous relationships between members of Congress, the Administration, the judiciary, Big Business and Hollywood is pretty iron-clad. It’s been proven time and again. Often it’s in the public record usually however, the connections are buried deep beneath layers upon layers of shell companies. That’s how leftist “populists” like Michael Moore can own huge swaths of stock in Halliburton for example. It explains why Obama’s first trip as president was to fire up Air Force One and fly to Copenhagen to get the 2016 Olympics for his “home town” of Chicago. Penny Pritzker and Rahm Emanuel dreamed that one up in order to level dozens of square miles in run down (read: black) areas of Chicago for their own personal gain.

        This is crony capitalism on steroids. If you can’t see that then I stand by my assertion of your sensibilities. (Curiously, you did not decide to challenge my assertion that Joe Biden’s son was on the board of directors of a major Ukrainian shale oil firm but you instead chose to concentrate your fire on preserving Mdme Pelosi’s honor. Interesting.)

        Here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/bidens-son-gets-ukrainian-oil-company-gig/

        • Reality Checker says

          Curiously, you did not decide to challenge my assertion that Joe Biden’s son was on the board of directors of a major Ukrainian shale oil firm but you instead chose to concentrate your fire on preserving Mdme Pelosi’s honor. Interesting.

          Why should I challenge a true statement? My job is to puncture the stupid and false ones. Hunter Biden’s a private citizen. Recall, however, that I did immediately challenge the utter absurdity of your assertion about the consequences following from the fact (your comment’s in bold):

          . . . Then we started talking some more, I told him about the Brexit and how the prediction markets were completely wrong. I told him about Biden and how his son is on the board of directors of some Ukrainian oligarch’s oil company and that’s what’s behind the Eastern Ukraine crisis. He didn’t know that.

          My comment on that:

          “Yeah, that must be what’s behind it. The fact that a Russian dictator (and Orthodox seminary student) murdered millions of Ukrainians by famine 80 years ago, and, in addition to his genocidal mania, later on shipped maybe hundreds of thousands of the survivors off to the gulag after the war — all of these facts have not a thing to do with why most of Ukraine’s people today are seriously rattled by another Russian dictator threatening them again, with God only knows what this time. It’s all Biden’s son’s fault! I didn’t know that, either. Nor do I know what on earth they could be thinking, many of them, preferring the European Union to being trapped in Putin’s RF. They must be insane.

          Or maybe it’s you who’s just nuts.”

          You cannot seriously believe that Hunter Biden’s seat on the board of Burisma Holdings is “what’s behind the Eastern Ukraine crisis”? Do you not understand what a flagrantly nutty remark that is? Or do you “stand by” this, too?

          Politicians in bed with big business, so what else is new. Strange that you could think only of figures from the Democratic side of the aisle, particularly when mentioning Halliburton of all companies. The other instance of corruption you allege didn’t exactly pan out. Seems to me the Olympics were held well south of Chicago. Two odd choices for illustration.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Great, then we have no essential disagreement! Joe Biden’s son, the Bushes, the 1% enjoy cozy but incestuous financial relationships all over the world and this drives their policies, sometimes even including military action.

            This is crony capitalism. And this is what I’m against. It’s bi-partisan, multi-national, transnational; it includes Big Ag, Big Pharma, and even Big Religion, and it sucks up economic resources at the expense of the bottom four quintiles.

            • Reality Checker says

              Odd that you aren’t at least as against crony capitalism in the Russian Federation. Never a word from you about Russian corruption. It’s far worse there and a vastly bigger drain on their economy.

              On top of which, their arrangements stink of the blasphemous pretense of divine imprimatur. We don’t delude ourselves about such things here any more.

              We’re all against political corruption in the US. It’s no excuse though for disseminating pernicious disinfo. Biden’s son had nothing to do with “the crisis in Eastern Ukraine.” The people of Ukraine, who are no doubt in the best position to know, blame the Russians (45%) and pro-Russian separatists (24%) most for that, pace the death threat-pronouncing über-creep MW.

              http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/10/key-findings-from-our-poll-on-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/

              A median of 39% across the eight NATO countries surveyed say that Russia is to blame for the crisis in Ukraine, more than blame the pro-Russian separatists (median of 18%), the Ukrainian government (9%) or Western countries (7%). Ukrainians agree, with 45% blaming Russia for the violence in eastern Ukraine. However, half in Russia blame Western countries, such as those in Europe and the U.S., for the Ukraine crisis. Around a quarter in Russia (26%) blame the current government in Kyiv, but only 2% name Russia as the primary cause of the conflict.

              When all the world sees just about everything far, far differently than the people of a nation whose dictator controls all their major media, it’s time for some to get a clue.

              • George Michalopulos says

                RC, I honestly don’t know why you can’t see what’s my motivation. Let me spell it out: I’m not a Russian but an American. I’m not a citizen of the RF but the US. There’s a lot of things I don’t like about Russian law, including the criminilization of some types of free speech or the absence of a Second Amendment. Same thing for most Western European countries by the way. I certainly don’t like the crony capitalism that is rampant in the RF.

                But I’m an American. By what right do you, I, or anybody else for that matter have to criticize the RF for practices that are abundantly being practiced here? Or worse, are unable to see how corrupt our own body politic has become? The hypocrisy is glaring.

                Leaving all that aside (and that’s a lot), what terrifies me of our Yankee sanctimoniousness is the very real possibility that we are provoking the Russian Bear. There is no sane reason for us to do so. When we had sane presidents (such as Eisenhower) there was no way we were going to throw away millions of American lives because of the Soviet’s brutal put-down of the Hungarian uprising. Even a man of LBJ’s ilk dared not dare lift a finger against the Soviets when they put down the Prague Spring.

                But not us Neocons. No… we want to risk WWII because Democracy. Why, look at how fantastically successful they were in Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan.

                • Reality Checker says

                  Let me spell it out: I’m not a Russian but an American. I’m not a citizen of the RF but the US.

                  Yes, but though you’ve now seen fit to criticize the RF (for the first time?) on a few counts in order to praise her with faint damnation, your usual practice is to hold her up as the Light unto the Nations, in contrast to America’s Sodom & Gomorrah. But that always rang hollow.

                  No reason one a) can’t criticize both while b) remaining sensitive to relative superiorities** and c) not concealing them in specious rhetoric d) serving a highly questionable agenda. My beef is with deluded ones here who dream of being madeth to lie down in greener pastures in a hallucinated Святая Русь.

                  What’s growing in Russia today sure doesn’t look too holy to me. Some of you need to consider whether you’re unable to distinguish between the Church of Christ and an essentially pagan state cult in thrall to a corrupt autocrat. Russia’s story since Peter I is consistent; they’re acting out a centuries-old pathology. And it looks to me like a very brief lull before another gathering storm is over. No one sane, anywhere, thinks there’s anything politically healthy in putting all that power in the hands of one corruptible man. Those of you who disagree are fools.

                  **America’s superiorities to Russia are still overwhelming and hardly just in the material sense. You have an evil eye for America’s problems, which are certainly serious enough but still fixable within the rules of our system. Unlike every other 1st-world nation, Russia has never matured beyond the stage of primitive autocracy, never had the organic growth of a broadly based civil society that so many other nations have enjoyed. She’s trapped in a political rut. Inchoate civil society in Russia has always been inhibited by hypertrophy of the state, i.e., the autocrat and his courtiers. The objectively demonstrable growth of a cult of Stalin-rehabilitation is an ominous portent of things to come there.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    RC, these are valid criticisms. Although I’ve never specified that Russia is a “light unto the nations” I can’t (given God’s providence and omniscience) doubt it either. Neither should you. Ancient Israel, despite its many failings, was likewise a light unto the nations, even the New Testament concedes that.

                    Having said that, I don’t know whether Russia is in indeed “Holy Russia” at present. Certainly Putin is no choirboy. But the only thing I do know is that if God has not raised up another nation to be a light unto the world then we’re in a world of hurt. Given the chaos that we have sown throughout the world since the mid-90s –all in the name of “democracy”–and the destruction of Orthodox nations, I fear we have much to answer for.

                    Let me be blunt: how many cities have we bombed in the name of Democracy? How many nations have had to be destroyed because we want their women to have abortion and buggery to be legalized?

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      George, the answer to the question–your last sentence above– is none.

                    • Reality Checker says

                      Mr. Michalopulos, parts of this post of yours are simply beneath contempt. Just about all I’d agree with beyond your remarks about ancient Israel and Putin’s not being a choirboy is that US foreign policy has sown chaos. True, unfortunately, but the worst of it began during the Reagan Administration, 10 years earlier than your phony starting point for a long-running debacle.

                    • Reality Checker says

                      (1) . . . Given the chaos that we have sown throughout the world since the mid-90s –all in the name of “democracy”–and the destruction of Orthodox nations
                      (2) . . . How many nations have had to be destroyed because we want their women to have abortion and buggery to be legalized?

                      (1) Which Orthodox nations have we destroyed? Names please.
                      Why do you claim the chaos-sowing began in the mid-90s? I ask because Reagan encouraged the Iran-Iraq War, which killed millions. Did that not contribute hugely to the chaos and madness in the region?
                      (2) Please answer your own rhetorical question: how many nations “have had to be destroyed” for the two reasons you claim? Which ones?

                      http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

                      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4859238

                      http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/remembering_the_dead_reagan_armed_iraq

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Serbia for one. (Heard of Kosovo? It’s the heartland of the Serbian nation.) One could say Ukraine as well (although it’s not completely Orthodox). Greece is well on its way towards failed nation status. And of course the Big Kahuna is Russia. The Neocons won’t rest until it is completely fractured.

                      It’s the Big Picture I’m looking at here RC.

                    • I think George means the destruction that has been wreaked on Orthodox nations. We rained it down on the Serbs and the Russo-Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine. Additionally, if you consider Syrian Orthodox to be a “nation” in the traditional sense, we have massively contributed to their decimation. Greece is being economically destroyed by the Borg.

                      I see George’s point.

                  • Apart from all the loaded terms that are used to describe Russia today, the main criticism seems to be regarding abortion which no one disputes is in precipitous decline.

                    Putin is very intelligent.

                    Russia has the form of democracy but the practical day to day effect of a monarchy with a strong, advisory parliament dominated by a loyal majority. The offices, functions and theoretical remedies are there. It’s just that, like Britain, Russian freedom of expression and press is not as open as in America and thus the government can occupy the field, so to speak, of the media. There is an opposition media, but it is not allowed to be dominant. The Unity/government line is clearly dominant. Thus there is no “illness” perceived to remedy and Putin enjoys astronomical popularity.

                    As I said, Putin is very intelligent.

                    It drives many in the West mad. But what is the value of faction? Is not harmony and unity more desirable? We speak of balances of power, three branches of government, and that’s fine. But do we need these partisan divides? The Founding Fathers sought no cure for faction, thinking it natural. They would have had a president and vice president of different parties.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796

                    Faction is only natural in the context of fallen humanity. We all realize that there is a better/best way to run things, we just disagree on what it is. If we could agree, would that not be better? Is faction desirable?

                    That is the Old Question, is it not? The one Lucifer posed and seemingly answered in the affirmative. Yes, faction is desirable because we dare not dream of unified, harmonious symphony; only totalitarianism.

                    But here is the truth:

                    Modern government is inescapably a welfare state. I support the most generous welfare state we can afford given practical considerations, including government competing with private health care.

                    We’re taxed enough. Stop the wars and streamline the government and you can raise the standard of living. Stopping the money printing presses was a good start.

                    Orthodox Christian morality is the Law of God. It should be enforced with a reasonable allowance for privacy and freedom of conscience.

                    The Great Powers control their regions, trade and interact, sharing resources. These things can be negotiated.

                    And therein would lie the peace.

                    But we have to get the Chinese away from materialism and back into a philosophical Taoist state of mind. That resolves with Orthodoxy. Islam can resolve into Shiism.

                    Peace on earth.

                    “You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one . . .”

                    It would be nice to have a planet of purring kitties, all on the same page, to present to the Lord Jesus Christ upon His Return, would it not? Alas, I suspect it may not transpire. I would be satisfied with it. I’m sure God would. He will judge in any case.

                    God is quite merciful. Mankind is the problem.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      George, please explain how, as you claim, we destroyed the Serbian nation in order to install buggery and abortion, but have taken no steps WHATSOEVER to “install” abortion there or buggery.
                      And what REPLACED the Serbian Nation after we destroyed it?

        • Facts and Figures says

          This statement is incorrect:

          ” It explains why Obama’s first trip as president was to fire up Air Force One and fly to Copenhagen to get the 2016 Olympics for his “home town” of Chicago.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_presidential_trips_made_by_Barack_Obama

          It was not his first international trip, it was his eighteenth. That’s a bit of a distinction. Which would have taken you literally ten seconds to fact-check, except you can’t be bothered even on a new claim following a long string of being called out for being flat. out. wrong. Again demonstrating you either don’t know how or can’t be bothered to post factual information. Do you ever get tired of it? I guess not.

          Also, the fact that he was lobbying for Chicago would really only be relevant if multiple American cities were in the mix. They were not, the finalists were Brazil (Rio), Japan (Tokyo), Span (Madrid) and the US (Chicago). If the President were playing favorites between say Chicago and Los Angeles you might have a point. But Chicago was the only US city to make a bid for 2016, the internal US competition for that happened well before the election, much less Obama being President (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_bid_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#USOC_city_selection)

          Instead, you are effectively criticizing Obama by saying that the President of the United States making the case that the United States is the best country in the world to host the Olympic Games is “crony capitalism”. Frankly, it sounds more like partisan rancor on your part. Presumably you don’t just hate America and love Brazil.

          Much of what you read on the Internet is not true Mr. Michalopulos. That you do not seem be able to determine what is and is not true from what you read sadly leads to your blog being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

          • Facts and Figures says

            Out of curiousity I googled ‘obama first trip site:monomakhos.com’

            In 2011 Mr. Michalopulos claimed Obama’s first trip was to Turkey (Erdoğan and the Long Shadow of Lepanto)

            In 2013 Mr. Michalopulos claimed Obama’s first trip was to Egypt (Message to Muslims: Time for Some Serious Questions)

            Now in 2016 he claims it was to Copenhagen.

            The actual answer, is Canada. If you don’t count Canada, it was the United Kingdom.

            Frankly, I don’t know which is more amusing, that he’s been wrong three times, or has made each claim not remembering any of his previous ones.

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          George, what’s “curious” about not challenging your assertion about Biden’s son?
          And repeating it, when it was not challenged, through providing a link about him is no reply to Reality Checker’s charges of baselessness relative to your specific charges against the Pelosis!

        • Reality Checker says

          Mr. Michalopulos, I’d like to ask your forgiveness if I’ve gone beyond a bit of snark to something nastier, in my zeal for accuracy and truthfulness.

  10. “But you are STILL not Russian, Michael Warren.. ”

    Ethnicity is largely and accident of birth. Projecting wannabe-ism onto someone is a waste of time.

    I don’t want to be confused with MW but I have learned to have a certain respect for him. He’s well read and generally knows whereof he speaks. His tone is quite jagged, no doubt. Though he has a patriotic devotion to the cause of Rus’ as a sort of function of Orthodoxy, as do I, we differ quite a bit in the details or at least the vantages from which we choose to appreciate the objective reality of what is happening.

    So I will defend my statements and he can defend his, the two not to be confused. Nonetheless, though he is vociferous, I’m glad he’s back if for no other reason than he annoys all the right people.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      Misha, here’s an incarnation in writing of irrational partisanship: “Nonetheless, though he is vociferous, I’m glad he’s back if for no other reason than he annoys all the right people.”

    • Reality Checker says

      Yeah, posting veiled and not all that veiled death threats, falsely accusing people who’d defend Ukrainians in the face of Russian aggression & smearing them as Nazis, supporters of vivisection, child rape, u.s.w., raving about a coming Nuremberg II to try and execute them — that’s some Christian discourse to give thanks for. I think you’ll find that would at least “annoy” just about anyone, not only “the right people.” Anyone except certain “Orthodox Christians.”

      Reading comprehension of some of our contributors here needs to be bumped up somehow. Though I think Putin is doing a great job in Russia . . .

      Diagnosing your creepy bromance with Putin isn’t an artefact of any reading comprehension problem. You think there’s something holy or righteous about the fact that so many of Putin’s journalist critics end up dead or in prison or having to run for their lives? Or godly to gradually reduced a nation of 180 million people to something close to a great big case of Stockholm Syndrome? Is that the sort of political tone you’d like to foment here? I guess like you and MW Putin has “a patriotic devotion to the cause of Rus’ as a sort of function of Orthodoxy.” Your notions of political success and Orthodoxy are real warped, buddy. People like you make me want to puke.

  11. Reality Checker says

    . . .If you assume that Congressmen don’t adhere to the pecuniary considerations of their major donors, then we really have no basis for debate.

    You amaze me. I make no such assumption. But I did prove that the companies you asserted falsely had donated to Pelosi had not in fact done so: the sources the Annenberg Public Policy Center investigated in this case were the relevant tax returns and public campaign finance records. Therefore this red herring is not responsive to any of the points made in my reply scrutinizing your falsehoods. Your remark is nothing but more static.

    And if you aren’t aware of the problem of memory-holing/404-error land, then we really do have a problem.

    Ridiculous. Are you back to claiming Paul Pelosi is the CEO (or the president, your “narrative” keeps changing) of Monsanto??? And that Monsanto’s own webpage with pictures and names of their corporate governance has been “memory-holed” (Board of Directors page here) just so you can to continue to lie here about Paul Pelosi so as not to look like a dishonest fool to some of your peanut gallery of credulous rubes? Why bring up “memory-holing” again? What’s your point? Do you even have a point?

    The “headquarters” as well as ownership of the various multi-nationals are fluid things. Mostly the movement of HQ’s are almost always the result of rent-seeking, that is to say the searching out of more favorable tax regimes. Often this does not result in the actual movement of physical facilities but the mere rebranding of a change in address.

    And what does any of this have to do with the fact that you lied about Pelosi receiving contributions from Del Monte or StarKist, and you lied that Paul Pelosi owned millions in shares of StarKist? Answer: Nada. So I guess the bottom line here is that you’re just too dishonest to retract lies and disinfo. Roger tower.

  12. Reality Checker says

    It’s the Big Picture I’m looking at here RC.

    Your ludicrous hyperboles aren’t worth a response. Claiming the US destroyed Greece and Ukraine is nothing but a stupid lie, obviously. Kosovo, “the heart of Serbia,” was part of the Ottoman Empire for almost five centuries until 1912. At the time of the war it wasn’t even 10% Serb. I suppose all that was the fault of the US, too. And I suppose Milosevic and his fellow war criminals were only innocent lambs wickedly persecuted by the evil West. The UN and the International Criminal Tribunal disagreed, since they were tried for war crimes and genocide. Is genocide an Orthodox value in your book? Misha certainly thinks so; do you, too?

    I assume you’ve just abandoned all hope for defending “How many nations have had to be destroyed because we want their women to have abortion and buggery to be legalized?” That’s prudent. The “Big Picture” you’re looking at is mostly hallucination.

    • George Michalopulos says

      RC, someday I’d like to take you to a Serbian church where you can tell the people there that they never really “had” a nation or that Kosovo was never really “a part” of their nation.

      For the record, the Greeks never had a nation either –until 1830. Nor did the Germans or Italians for that matter.

      • Reality Checker says

        RC, someday I’d like to take you to a Serbian church where you can tell the people there that they never really “had” a nation or that Kosovo was never really “a part” of their nation.

        I don’t dialogue for long with anyone I find consistently twisting what I wrote or putting words in my mouth. That isn’t even close to what I said; I stated two pertinent and entirely indisputable facts about Kosovo, relevant to your ridiculous assertion that the US “destroyed” Serbia.