Speaking of conspiracy theories...

[TSherbs]

Oh my Lord, this one from the Kook (Michael Flynn)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...astor-1230601/

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

He’s a military veteran right? Didn’t think they could do no wrong and were the smartest people in the US.

[TSherbs]

He’s a military veteran right? Didn’t think they could do no wrong and were the smartest people in the US.

His profession (or former profession) doesn't matter. He's an absolute fool on this topic.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

He’s a military veteran right? Didn’t think they could do no wrong and were the smartest people in the US.

His profession (or former profession) doesn't matter. He's an absolute fool on this topic.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

He has a history. We have many fools for Trump. I cannot think of one person associated with him for which they were not damaged goods afterwards. The religious people he has taken down has taken a unrecoverable toll. And the abuse he levied against others who would not go along like the unprovoked talk toward John McCain is something for which I will never forget as the first reason I knew he was not a good person and certainly incapable of leading.

[TSherbs]

He’s a military veteran right? Didn’t think they could do no wrong and were the smartest people in the US.

His profession (or former profession) doesn't matter. He's an absolute fool on this topic.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

He has a history.

Yes, as do we all.

My point is that one's profession has nothing to do with whether or not one is intelligent in their thinking or openness to conspiracy thinking.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Speaking of conspiracy theories:

New York Post : 'Loch Ness Monster' spotted again! This time on drone footage.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/25/loch-n...drone-footage/

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Sweet news.

Here's what should happen also to perpetrators of the Big Lie around the election:

NBC News: Alex Jones loses twice in Texas court for failing to back up Sandy Hook school massacre lies with proof.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-hook-n1280598

The judge is brutal, and accurate.

[Chuck Naill]

I remember the day I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh. It occured to me that all he did was to stir up trouble. He had no interested in working to make a difference. I suppose Jones is the same. He saw a way to make lot of money with "rhetorical hyperbole". These type, as we have seen, can cause much harm when in public office.

As MLK said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but bends toward justice. I am glad for the parents and families of Sandy Hook. I cannot imagine the pain they have suffered. For a person to cause them additional harm is unthinkable. I have no use for Jones et al.

[TSherbs]

I want Jones pillaried in public, but I won't get my wish.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

In my heart I feel I have taken the moral path politically and scientifically (virus). Not everyone has the time to study Trump, Jones, Limbaugh, or what has become the Republicans. However, non of this is anything new.

Now days, when I think of Texas, I think of what was done to make it a slave state and not the false narritives about white hats, cowboys ,and independence. Does this mean I am "woke"? Is woke the new informed? I can't say. Everyone must decide for themselves to study, learn, and live accordingly.

[dneal]

In my heart I feel I have taken the moral path politically and scientifically (virus). Not everyone has the time to study Trump, Jones, Limbaugh, or what has become the Republicans. However, non of this is anything new.

Now days, when I think of Texas, I think of what was done to make it a slave state and not the false narritives about white hats, cowboys ,and independence. Does this mean I am "woke"? Is woke the new informed? I can't say. Everyone must decide for themselves to study, learn, and live accordingly.

Problem is Chuck, people do no end of feeling - and mistake it for thinking. If you ignore half the argument and only read what reinforces your feelings, im not sure id call that studying.

[Chuck Naill]

In my heart I feel I have taken the moral path politically and scientifically (virus). Not everyone has the time to study Trump, Jones, Limbaugh, or what has become the Republicans. However, non of this is anything new.

Now days, when I think of Texas, I think of what was done to make it a slave state and not the false narritives about white hats, cowboys ,and independence. Does this mean I am "woke"? Is woke the new informed? I can't say. Everyone must decide for themselves to study, learn, and live accordingly.

Problem is Chuck, people do no end of feeling - and mistake it for thinking. If you ignore half the argument and only read what reinforces your feelings, im not sure id call that studying.

I agree, but at this point, this side of COVID-19 and Trump, I don’t know how the story ends. I’m like the German in 1932, when the Jews were losing their civil rights.

[dneal]

I agree, but at this point, this side of COVID-19 and Trump, I don’t know how the story ends. I’m like the German in 1932, when the Jews were losing their civil rights.

There’s a hell of a zinger there I’m just going to leave alone… and just say thats why people worldwide are protesting government mandates. Because they value civil rights.

[Chuck Naill]

Civil rights and knowing history is important for any thinking person to self educate. Dictators occur.

Two ways dictators come to power is through polarized society and radicalization. This is now what the US is experiencing. I can only go on feelings and intuitive skills.

[dneal]

Civil rights and knowing history is important for any thinking person to self educate. Dictators occur.

Two ways dictators come to power is through polarized society and radicalization. This is now what the US is experiencing. I can only go on feelings and intuitive skills.

I agree, Chuck. I see two radicalized sides, and from your posts come to believe you are on one of them - and unaware of it.

[Chuck Naill]

Civil rights and knowing history is important for any thinking person to self educate. Dictators occur.

Two ways dictators come to power is through polarized society and radicalization. This is now what the US is experiencing. I can only go on feelings and intuitive skills.

I agree, Chuck. I see two radicalized sides, and from your posts come to believe you are on one of them - and unaware of it.

Perhaps I am. Choosing to not support Trump is a bit radical for any conservative. I am convinced based on my studies and experience that I am on the correct side of radicalization.

[dneal]

Do you think there is a radical left?

Some commentator or lecturer I heard the other day made a statement along the lines of: "We know there is a radical right, and where its limit begins (e.g.: neo-nazis, "freemen", etc...). Where is that line on the left?". I thought it was a good point, and have been pondering that.

[dneal]

As an aside, and I think I posted it somewhere else, but I have found "motive" to be a very effective litmus test for discerning bias (left or right). Does the speaker assign motive? If so, they're not worth listening to. 'Trump is literally Hitler' or 'Obama is a Communist' are the truncated versions in our ADHD, text-distracted, 30-second burritos ain't fast enough society that has devolved to a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums about nothing.

The longer versions are much more eloquent, of course; and although I despise The Atlantic's lack of journalistic integrity, I do enjoy the writing and editing. There are magazines on the right I feel similarly about - although it has been sad to watch Peggy Noonan's writing decline... Everything between is the "talking heads". Cuomo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olberman, Lemon, Kelly, etc... They're all just degrees of intensity and verbosity in assigning motive to the other side.

It's rhetorical. It's persuasive. It's profitable.

It's a distraction.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you think there is a radical left?

Some commentator or lecturer I heard the other day made a statement along the lines of: "We know there is a radical right, and where its limit begins (e.g.: neo-nazis, "freemen", etc...). Where is that line on the left?". I thought it was a good point, and have been pondering that.

I would think so, but perhaps defining what it means to be radical is in order. For example, I could be considered radical if I am in the minority opinion. Is that how you define radicalization? If not, how?

[Chuck Naill]

As an aside, and I think I posted it somewhere else, but I have found "motive" to be a very effective litmus test for discerning bias (left or right). Does the speaker assign motive? If so, they're not worth listening to. 'Trump is literally Hitler' or 'Obama is a Communist' are the truncated versions in our ADHD, text-distracted, 30-second burritos ain't fast enough society that has devolved to a bunch of toddlers throwing tantrums about nothing.

The longer versions are much more eloquent, of course; and although I despise The Atlantic's lack of journalistic integrity, I do enjoy the writing and editing. There are magazines on the right I feel similarly about - although it has been sad to watch Peggy Noonan's writing decline... Everything between is the "talking heads". Cuomo, Hannity, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olberman, Lemon, Kelly, etc... They're all just degrees of intensity and verbosity in assigning motive to the other side.

It's rhetorical. It's persuasive. It's profitable.

It's a distraction.

The context for which I heard or read regarding assigning motive was in the setting of seeking an opportunity to compromise and/or reach agreement. If you and I were to meet in a room and I had preconceived opinions about why you were there other than you were there, it will limit me being able to see you as someone who truly wants to find a way to make it work.

When I read an op-ed where the writer referrs to Trump as a Hitler, I agree with you. In fact, I will try to discontinue doing so myself. That said, we have discriptive terms and definitions that can aid when we are trying to explain. Limiting our ability to discribe or compare can prevent effective communication. In my opinion and based on evidence, for me, I can objectivily make the case that Donald Trump was not a good leader nor does he have the skill set necessary to do so in a democratic government where there are three branches of government and term limits in place. We can disagree and I won't decide I know your motives for supporting Trump.

Lets take John McCain's vote against the "skinny repeal" of the ACA. What was the motive? What was Trump's response?

“While the amendment would have repealed some of ObamaCare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens,” McCain said. For me the motive was a concern for the American people who depend upon the ACA for healthcare. There was no indication he did it against Trump.

It is important to know how Trump handled McCain's action. What he said is important, but you don't have to imagine his motivations, just his words and actions.