Discussion:
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
Add Reply
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-06 21:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)



David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-06 21:33:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.

He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.

He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.

Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.

You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?

It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.

So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.

Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
among Trump voters and Hillary voters in belief in a JFK conspiracy:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-07 13:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.

Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Off topic response:


If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
website:

http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf

Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
situation and has a child with Autism:

https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/

And:

http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/

It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-06-07 14:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.

But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
That's sort of like saying the favorite whine of the LNs is that
'they all lied'. But now applied to a fact checking organization. You
see, Carter Page was in the sights of the FBI as far back a 2013, when the
Dossier didn't even exist. They had followed his exploits in Russian and
elsewhere and he was a suspicious character to them. While there are
Republicans working with Devon Nunes that would like to spread the story
that the FISA warrant was initiated on the Dossier alone, it just wasn't
true. But I will be happy to read anything you put forward proving that
the FISA warrant was due mainly to the Dossier:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2

Remember, that Devon Nunes discredited himself with his memo to the
W.H. giving them info, when that was where he originally got it. There
was much political dirt around that secret memo he and the Republicans
sent out.

However, the Steele Dossier has not been disproved in any part, and
has been verified in some parts.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
I seriously doubt that the Clinton people knew where the info was
coming from. They wanted dirt and they subcontracted for it as do most
campaigns. The FusionGPS company went where they could get the info, and
that wasn't attached to the Clinton people. In the case of the Trump
people (including Manafort), they spoke directly with representatives of
the Russian and Saudi governments who said they would help elect Trump.
That attempt to get 'dirt' on Clinton was illegal and therefore is what
some call 'collusion', even if they didn't get what they went there for.
It's proven with emails and testimony. Manafort being there (Campaign
manager) means they can't plead ignorance of the laws.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.
But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
The Obama people didn't get caught working with the Russians to win
the election which is illegal. The time to nail him passed if he or his
people were guilty of a crime. But I think most people would think there
was a difference in Obama's people using Facebook to get elected, and the
Russians working through criminal methods to get Trump elected. Data was
stolen from 87 million people on Facebook, for the purpose of using the
info to target people with specific messages.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
Yep, I do indeed, but only the ones that have good evidence of the
conspiracy.

Chris/mainframtech
bigdog
2018-06-10 00:32:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Factcheck.org thinks not.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-spin-democratic-memo/
Factcheck is biased. There is no doubt that the FBI used the Steele
dossier as part of the "evidence" to get permission from the FISA
court to wiretap the phones of Trump associates.
That's sort of like saying the favorite whine of the LNs is that
'they all lied'. But now applied to a fact checking organization. You
see, Carter Page was in the sights of the FBI as far back a 2013, when the
Dossier didn't even exist. They had followed his exploits in Russian and
elsewhere and he was a suspicious character to them. While there are
Republicans working with Devon Nunes that would like to spread the story
that the FISA warrant was initiated on the Dossier alone, it just wasn't
true. But I will be happy to read anything you put forward proving that
http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2
Remember, that Devon Nunes discredited himself with his memo to the
W.H. giving them info, when that was where he originally got it. There
was much political dirt around that secret memo he and the Republicans
sent out.
However, the Steele Dossier has not been disproved in any part, and
has been verified in some parts.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You've forgotten that Trump Tower meeting with Russians in contact
with Putin, that offered Trump Jr. 'dirt' on Clinton. He emailed the "he
loved it". By coming to the meeting and not mentioning it to the FBI or
other law enforcement, he was guilty of the real word for 'collusion'.
By that same standard the Hillary campaign was "colluding," getting
dirt on Trump from Steele and indirectly from the Russians.
I seriously doubt that the Clinton people knew where the info was
coming from.
I seriously doubt they cared.
Post by mainframetech
They wanted dirt and they subcontracted for it as do most campaigns.
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
The FusionGPS company went where they could get the info, and
that wasn't attached to the Clinton people.
That happened later.
Post by mainframetech
In the case of the Trump
people (including Manafort), they spoke directly with representatives of
the Russian and Saudi governments who said they would help elect Trump.
So you are saying The Trump campaign cheated better than the Hillary
campaign.
Post by mainframetech
That attempt to get 'dirt' on Clinton was illegal and therefore is what
some call 'collusion', even if they didn't get what they went there for.
Putting classified information on a private email server is illegal too
but who's counting?
Post by mainframetech
It's proven with emails and testimony. Manafort being there (Campaign
manager) means they can't plead ignorance of the laws.
What was Hillary's excuse?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Attempting it is enough to be guilty, whether you get what you want or
not. The offer to help with the campaign was also made by Saudi Arabia in
another meeting, and the Russians have been shown to have interfered with
the election dramatically by using psychology and advertising and starting
vocal groups on Facebook.
Facebook estimates that 150 million people saw the Russian advertising
or psychological efforts. As time goes on, it gets more and more likely
that Russia had an effect on the election results. The Cambridge
Analytica debacle was a more clue to that interference using psychological
methods.
The Obama campaign did virtually the same thing, "targeting" people
using social media data.
But somehow it becomes sinister when Trump people do it.
The Obama people didn't get caught
I guess that's the key.
Post by mainframetech
working with the Russians to win
the election which is illegal. The time to nail him passed if he or his
people were guilty of a crime.
Oh really? What's the statute of limitations?
Post by mainframetech
But I think most people would think there
was a difference in Obama's people using Facebook to get elected, and the
Russians working through criminal methods to get Trump elected. Data was
stolen from 87 million people on Facebook, for the purpose of using the
info to target people with specific messages.
Facebook granted Cambridge Analytica access to the data just as it had
granted access to Democrats in the past.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
That's already been proven, see above.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Folks keep forgetting to add the group known as conspiracy Fact
lovers.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If one examines the words of a CDC whistleblower named William
Thompson, PhD, you find that there is proof that vaccines (MMR) was one of
the causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD): It's here on his attorney's
http://www.cdctruth.org/wp-content/uploads/STATEMENT-OF-WILLIAM-W.-THOMPSON-Ph.D.-REGARDING-THE-2004-ARTICLE-EXAMINING-THE-POSSIBILITY-OF-A-RELATIONSHIP-BETWEEN-MMR-VACCINE-AND-AUTISM.pdf
Also here is the statement of Brian Hooker, PhD, who opened the
https://www.focusforhealth.org/dr-brian-hooker-statement-william-thompson/
http://www.truthwiki.org/dr-william-thompson/
It's so easy to make comments without researching a topic. For this
topic there are many other facts such as the congress refused to hear the
story or subpoena Thompson who blew the whistle on the CDC, and many
others.
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
Yep, I do indeed, but only the ones that have good evidence of the
conspiracy.
Which in your world means they are conspiracies you want to believe in.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-12 21:25:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.

There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.

In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.

10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator

1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.

When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.

Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
Wait for it, wait for it. July 4th.
Post by d***@gmail.com
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-13 14:48:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
What you are saying is completely unprincipled.

You never would make an argument like that if the "deep state" had
abused its power to try to destroy Barack Obama.

What you are condoning is a "soft coup." You seem to think it's OK
for government officials to conspire to overthrow the results of a
presidential election.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 03:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
What you are saying is completely unprincipled.
You never would make an argument like that if the "deep state" had
abused its power to try to destroy Barack Obama.
zi like your new rightwing conspiracy theory.
Tell us how the Deep State wanted to destroy Obama.
The least you could do is claim that the Deep State destroyed Hillary.
Post by John McAdams
What you are condoning is a "soft coup." You seem to think it's OK
for government officials to conspire to overthrow the results of a
presidential election.
For the last two years I have been arguing for the Soft Coup.
It's called the 25th Amendment. No bloodshed, no killing.
Just a simple vote to remove an insane President.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-13 14:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
Don't you understand that posting stuff like this puts you in the same
class as Tony March?

Bashing Trump may have a cathartic effect for you, but it just
reinforces the notion that Trump's enemies are deranged with hatred.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 03:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
Don't you understand that posting stuff like this puts you in the same
class as Tony March?
Bashing Trump may have a cathartic effect for you, but it just
reinforces the notion that Trump's enemies are deranged with hatred.
How do you know he isn't just one of my aliases?
Maybe my other alias is Tony March.
Instead of my real name Anthony Marsh.
You met me in person. Doubt if you stayed for my presentation, but you
saw that it was listed in the schedule as Anthony Marsh.
Were YOU listed in the schedule as Paul Nolan?

How many people are old enough to remember why you sign your name .John?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-06-13 14:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SINCE 2000.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-14 02:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?

Isn't that conspiracy belief?

Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.

Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
BOZ
2018-06-15 21:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
EXCELLENT POINT STEVE.
BOZ
2018-06-15 21:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
THIS IS SREVE'S EXCELLENT POINT. Don't many - if not most - Democratic
members of Congress believe that STEVE THE USA HAS THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE SINCE 2000.

Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
bigdog
2018-06-16 21:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
David E. from Memphis: are you following this? Seems Mainframe (the
leftist here) believes in a lot of conspiracies.
If Mainframe were a congressman, senator, a member of the president's
cabinet, or an adviser to the president, it would be more disturbing.
Those are the ones who either buy into Trump's wild conspiracy beliefs or,
at a minimum, remain silent. In any case, I hardly consider mainframe a
typical representative of the left.
There's a reason Trump is having so much trouble with the "deep state"
(although most of the leaks seem to be coming directly out of his own
communication department). These are the people who remain in the
government machinery from one president to the next regardless of party
affiliation. Every president has to deal with the "deep state". This is
nothing new. They've seen president's come and go but they see something
uniquely troubling about THIS particular president - and they're not
afraid to let the world know what is happening. I would say it's almost a
patriotic thing to do because they put themselves at great risk because
they feel exposing what is going on is worth the legal risks for
themselves.
In any case, I do not consider the political back-and-forths in this
discussion group to be a data point in a much larger debate.
10 Ways to Know If You're a Dictator
1. You're a narcissist who likes putting his name and face on buildings.
CHECK!
2. You appoint family members to positions of power. CHECK!
3. Your rallies are scary. CHECK! ("I'd like to punch him in the face!")
4. You hate the press. You characterize them as "the enemy of the people".
CHECK!
5. You want to hold missile parades. NOT YET - but Trump desperately wants
one and the House Republicans have agreed to fund it.
6. You use your office for your own financial gain. CHECK!
7. You align with dictators and strongmen. CHECK!
8. You claim that minorities are the cause of the country's problems.
CHECK!
9. You lie freely. CHECK!
10. You dress in a military costume. NOT YET.
When we see Donald Trump regaled in a military uniform, complete with
medals and epaulettes on his shoulder, that's when it will be complete. "I
always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Trump once said to a Lieutenant
Colonel who had actually earned his Purple Heart. What a dumbass thing to
say to a veteran.
Now, admittedly, I'm saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think
Trump is one uniform short of being the most disturbing president we've
had in modern history. If not that, at least the most embarrassing.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Don't many - if not most - Democratic members of Congress believe that
Trump conspired with Putin to steal/alter the election?
Isn't that conspiracy belief?
Now, it may be true that he did although it's been over a year and I've
seen no credible evidence for it.
Trump IS an embarrassment, a disgrace, and a man completely unsuited for
the presidency (and just about any other job). But that doesn't excuse the
hysteria and conspiracy mongering by his opponents. It's possible to keep
several ideas in our head at the same time; to wit, he's disgraceful and
his opponents have, somehow, been reckless and irresponsible in their
criticism of him.
It doesn't matter what Trump says or does, the networks, MSNBC, CNN, and
the liberal newspapers ask themselves how they can put a negative spin on
the story. Not once will they present anything Trump does in a positive
light. I've completely tuned these people out. They've taken sides. When
they are so blatantly biased, why would I trust them to fairly report the
news? It would be like putting your faith in a referee who had bet on one
of the teams.

BOZ
2018-06-08 00:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-tells-bill-maher-that-anti-science-1780648740
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
Where it "goes" is that Maher is a left-wing yahoo.
He claims that all Republicans are conspiracy theorists, simply based
on Trump's buddy-buddy relationship with Alex Jones.
You mean the comedian? I haven't seen any serious person say that ALL
Republicans are conspiracy theorists. Maybe all Trump supporters.
Post by John McAdams
He claims it is a "conspiracy theory" that the FBI was spying on the
Trump campaign. But they were! Using the Steels dossier to get
permission from the FISA court.
People who were later in the Trump campaign. PAST-PRESENT-FUTURE.
Post by John McAdams
Then Maher claims this was justified because "everybody in the Trump
campaign was communicating with Russia." Leaving out that none of it
has anything to do with interference in the 2016 election.
Not EVERYBODY. Just the important people. Not the secretaries and janitors.
Post by John McAdams
You are not *so* partisan you would claim any evidence of collusion,
would you?
Forget Collusion. The charge is Treason.
Post by John McAdams
It also ignores something you know perfectly well from the JFK
assassination: hard core JFK conspiracists lean hard to the left.
So do 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Overgeneralization. You are leaving out the Alex Joneses and JBS.
Post by John McAdams
And of course, RFK, Jr. believes that vacinnes cause autism, and that
the Republicans stole Ohio in 2004.
Where did they hide it?
Post by John McAdams
Here is something you should know: there is virtually no difference
False. You may not realize it but you can approach the same facts from
opposite sides and come up with a conspiracy theory blaming the other
side.
Post by John McAdams
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-07 13:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Re the left/right: it depends on the conspiracy, doesn't it?

Large numbers of people on the left believe that Trump conspired with
Putin to steal the election; large numbers on the right believe that
elements of the Obama Administration and the "deep state" conspired to
promote/disseminate that false claim in order to undermine Trump's
presidency.

Two different conspiracies coming out of the same general event.

So, who are the conspiracists here?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Re the left/right: it depends on the conspiracy, doesn't it?
Large numbers of people on the left believe that Trump conspired with
Putin to steal the election; large numbers on the right believe that
elements of the Obama Administration and the "deep state" conspired to
promote/disseminate that false claim in order to undermine Trump's
presidency.
Two different conspiracies coming out of the same general event.
So, who are the conspiracists here?
Collusion or conspiracy is a human trait that they use when they see
the possibility of gain, or more security or other benefit. Working with
others is a natural result of need and survival. It is also natural then
for humans to consider that there was some collusion in some act or event
that occurred. That's one form of conspiracy belief. Another is that
humans like to hear of problems being had by others who might be doing
wrong, when it's not themselves. It means they are doing better than
someone else. That may not be the complete answer, but I welcome other
thoughts on it.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-07 13:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 22:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
Maybe one is an R1 and the other is an R2?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING MAYBE BEING A LEFTIST IS A GENE. MAYBE BEING A RIGHTWINGER IS A
GENE. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY GENE, BUT NOW YOU ARE
MAKING IT A LEFT AND RIGHT ISSUE. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS?
He gave legitimate examples of both left and right conspiracies. I
think his point is valid.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-07 14:06:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Thanks! Kind words indeed from the LN side.

I recommend the video to anyone that wants a good laugh!

But we need to add a category: Conspiracy Fact.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
YOU USED THE WORD BELIEF. NOW YOU BELIEVE THAT BELIEF IN CONSPIRACIES IS A
BELIEF. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY GENE. YOU JUST
DEBUNKED YOURSELF AGAIN EMERLING. BELIEFS IN CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY
GENES ARE NOT THE SAME.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 22:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
YOU USED THE WORD BELIEF. NOW YOU BELIEVE THAT BELIEF IN CONSPIRACIES IS A
BELIEF. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY GENE. YOU JUST
DEBUNKED YOURSELF AGAIN EMERLING. BELIEFS IN CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY
GENES ARE NOT THE SAME.
I think that was just a bad joke. No scientific evidence.
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I WATCHED IT AND BILL MAHER IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY FUNNY. HE SURE IS AN UGLY
MAN. BILL MAHER IS MORE VULGAR THAN YOU ARE MR. EMERLING. EMERLING, I
NEVER BOUGHT INTO YOUR HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE WRITING
STYLE. I READ DALE CARNEGIE'S BOOK TOO.IT'S A BOOK OF DECEPTION AND
INSINCERITY. I AM GOING TO KEEP WRITING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE IT DISTURBS
PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-07 14:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."

But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
I can help you there:

https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html

See table in the second link.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-06-09 01:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.

Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.

Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.

You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2018-06-09 18:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA, LA,
LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-10 18:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA, LA,
LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jason Burke
2018-06-11 02:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA,
LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
You da man when it comes to knowing about TVs, Anthony Anthony.
You da man.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-12 12:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 2:18:29 PM UTC-7,
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
  See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
But Chris gots nuffin else. So he needs to cover his ears and go LA,
LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
At least his TV is not broken and stuck on Fox News.
You da man when it comes to knowing about TVs, Anthony Anthony.
You da man.
At least I know how to change the channel!
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-10 00:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Ah, is there nowhere we can get the truth when these issues come up?
The LNs have an antenna for this stuff. They can always seem to tell when
'they all lied' or 'they all were mistaken'. Now even the fact checkers
can't be trusted.
Post by John McAdams
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
The use of opinions is done by both sides in these debates.
Post by John McAdams
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
We need to ask ourselves why Republicans are fact checked more often.
Are they doubted more often? Certainly Trump and his surrogates, like
Giuliani are. Hardly a day goes by that Trump doesn't lie, either in a
speech or a Tweet. He's still trying to get away with blaming democrats
for tearing babies away from their mothers coming over the border! And
blaming them for the DACA mess which Trump himself precipitated by killing
the order.

Sorry for the rant, I lose it now and then.
Post by John McAdams
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
Because 'they all lie' or deliver 'fake news'? The damage Trump has
done to our important heritage of free press by attacking them to try and
get himself off the dime with his crimes? The free press along with
honest voting are backbones of a solid democracy (or Republic, if you
like), and it will be years before they will be able to regain the
reputation they had.

I get my news from the "mainstream media organizations", and FOX News
can't compete with the level of honesty I get from those people. Chris
bigdog
2018-06-10 22:50:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Ah, is there nowhere we can get the truth when these issues come up?
The LNs have an antenna for this stuff. They can always seem to tell when
'they all lied' or 'they all were mistaken'. Now even the fact checkers
can't be trusted.
Who appointed these people to be fact checkers and how do you know you can
trust them? Oh, yeah. They have fact checker in their title. I guess
that's good enough.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
The use of opinions is done by both sides in these debates.
The trick is to separate fact from opinion. To do that you have to engage
your mind or you can take the easy way out and let the fact checkers tell
you what to think.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
We need to ask ourselves why Republicans are fact checked more often.
Gee, it couldn't be because the fact checkers are Democrats, could it?
Post by mainframetech
Are they doubted more often? Certainly Trump and his surrogates, like
Giuliani are. Hardly a day goes by that Trump doesn't lie, either in a
speech or a Tweet. He's still trying to get away with blaming democrats
for tearing babies away from their mothers coming over the border!
Democrats spent the 8 years of the Obama presidency blaming Bush43 for the
sluggish economy.
Post by mainframetech
And
blaming them for the DACA mess which Trump himself precipitated by killing
the order.
Sorry for the rant, I lose it now and then.
Gee, I hadn't noticed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
Because 'they all lie' or deliver 'fake news'? The damage Trump has
done to our important heritage of free press by attacking them to try and
get himself off the dime with his crimes?
Why do you think a free press should be immune from criticism?
Post by mainframetech
The free press along with
honest voting are backbones of a solid democracy (or Republic, if you
like), and it will be years before they will be able to regain the
reputation they had.
It is their fault their reputation is in the crapper. They chose to take
sides and become advocates instead of journalists. They will never regain
their reputation until they realize that true journalism is reporting
facts, not trying to sway the public to your way of thinking. They deserve
the low regard in which they are held.
Post by mainframetech
I get my news from the "mainstream media organizations", and FOX News
can't compete with the level of honesty I get from those people.
Honesty? From who? CNN? MSNBC? The NYT? The Washington Compost? Are you
trying to be funny?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-10 22:44:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Maher is hilarious -- "You know that bullshit I made up? I want you to get
to the bottom of it."
But he is wrong in singling out Republicans who play fast and loose with
the facts. Democrats do a fine job of that as well. I guess it comes down
to whoever lies the best wins the prize.
https://cmpa.gmu.edu/study-media-fact-checker-says-republicans-lie-more/
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html
See table in the second link.
The problem with your post is that fact checkers lie.
Or more frequently, convert a "factual" issue to an issue of opinion
and side with Democrats.
Or, among a vast number of false statements coming from politicians,
choose to "fact check" Republicans more.
You really should not be citing Mainstream Media organizations on
this.
You really should not be attacking Freedom of the Press just to support
your buddy Trump. Some day even you might need to depend on the First
Amendment
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BILL MAHER SAID THE FOLLOWING IN 2017:

Can I put this in perspective? When Kennedy was President, he wasn't
f***ing around with the Russians, but he was f***ing around. The
intelligence agencies -- we don't know what happened to Jack Kennedy, but
that was one theory because they couldn't trust him because he was f***ing
East German spies and mafia couriers. And they were like, "This guy has a
p**** problem, and this cannot stand. He is too much of a danger to
America."
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
Most people at Cornell bought/sold/used marijuana.

Chris
BOZ
2018-06-10 18:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING DID YOU KNOW THAT BILL MAHER SOLD MARIJUANA WHILE ATTENDING
CORNELL UNIVERSITY?
Most people at Cornell bought/sold/used marijuana.
Chris
THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE MEN ON THE 7TH FLOOR?
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BILL MAHER IS A RACIST. READ THIS:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jun/03/bill-maher-hbo-real-time-ben-sasse
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2013/02/06/donald-trump-sues-bill-maher-for-calling-him-the-son-of-an-orangutan/&refURL=https://en.wikipedia.org/&referrer=https://en.wikipedia.org/
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
WHAT IS YOUR STUDY BASED ON? SHOW ME THE STATS.
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I DON'T GET IT. YOU ARE NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST YET YOU ARE SAYING THAT
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE MORE OPEN MINDED? YOU KEEP CONTRADICTING
YOURSELF.
BOZ
2018-06-08 00:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
ACCORDING TO DAVID EMERLING: It's a gene! Those who find themselves
inexplicably attracted to all these outrageous conspiracy theories have
this gene.

THE TITLE OF YOUR POST 'Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a
left/right issue? ARE YOU NOW ADMITTING THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY GENE?
YOU REFER TO CONSPIRACIES AS A BELIEF IN THE ABOVE POST.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 14:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
ACCORDING TO DAVID EMERLING: It's a gene! Those who find themselves
I think he was joking.
Post by BOZ
inexplicably attracted to all these outrageous conspiracy theories have
this gene.
THE TITLE OF YOUR POST 'Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a
left/right issue? ARE YOU NOW ADMITTING THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY GENE?
YOU REFER TO CONSPIRACIES AS A BELIEF IN THE ABOVE POST.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
PS I don't believe in your post.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
False dichotomy. Many Republicans are conspiracy theorists.
Especially Trump and his followers.
Breakfast with Oswald?
bigdog
2018-06-08 01:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 14:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
Bill Clarke
2018-06-10 18:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
The only thing that proves is that didn't have as good of lawyers as
Hillary.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 14:15:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
Yes, so please list them side by side so that we can see which were better.
BTW, several people have already pleaded guilty.
The only thing that proves is that didn't have as good of lawyers as
Hillary.
So, you are just another know nothing WC defender who can't answer my
questions.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 02:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.

Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump. Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.

I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.

Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-12 02:04:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.
Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump.
You haven't been following my discussions with Chris. While not stating it
happened, he has strongly suggested it is a possibility.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.
Given the margins Trump won the key blue wall states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin by, it's hard to believe Russian influence made a
significant difference anywhere. They have been trying to influence our
elections for a long time and we have tried to influence theirs, both
efforts being rather feeble. I don't think the Russians were trying to
help Trump win. They thought like everyone else that Hillary was going to
win and they wanted her to be a weakened president.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.
Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.
I haven't heard Schumer or Pelosi scoffing at some of the wackier liberal
conspiracy theories.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 00:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Conspiracy theories and making shit up is hardly unique to the
Republicans. The Democrats just believe in different conspiracy theories
and make up different shit, like the Russians stealing the election for
Trump.
That's true - in general. But, with regards to the TYPE of contemporary
conspiracy theories that Trump trafficks in - I'd say it is overwhelmingly
embraced (disproportionately so) by Republicans.
Nobody is saying that the Russians changed the votes cast by American
voters. A vote for Clinton was a vote for Clinton. Nobody is saying that
the Russians somehow CHANGED that vote into a vote for Trump.
You haven't been following my discussions with Chris. While not stating it
happened, he has strongly suggested it is a possibility.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even the
declassified intelligence report that concluded that the Russians made an
unprecedented effort to create chaos, exacerbate cultural divides, and
demonize Hillary Clinton didn't say that it necessarily affected the
outcome of the election. In fact, the report specifically says that they
didn't even look into that. They were only certain that the Russians were
on a very high tech and sophisticated campaign to do these things. The
extent that it caused certain Americans who may have been inclined to vote
for Clinton to either 1) vote for Trump, 2) vote for Bernie Sanders, or 3)
become disengaged and not vote is unknown. But it only makes sense that it
certainly must have affected SOME. And, considering the closeness of the
race, it's not unfounded to speculate as to that it MAY have made a
difference.
Given the margins Trump won the key blue wall states of Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Wisconsin by, it's hard to believe Russian influence made a
significant difference anywhere. They have been trying to influence our
elections for a long time and we have tried to influence theirs, both
efforts being rather feeble. I don't think the Russians were trying to
help Trump win. They thought like everyone else that Hillary was going to
win and they wanted her to be a weakened president.
Overgeneralization. We are talking about a few thousand votes to flip in
only a few key states.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
I wouldn't characterize that as a conspiracy. At worst, it's simply
overstating the effects of certain FACTS.
Sure, there are some wacky liberals who are saying wacky things. The
problem with the type of conspiracies that Trump espouses is that
RESPECTED Republicans (Legislators!) either agree or, perhaps worse, are
silent.
I haven't heard Schumer or Pelosi scoffing at some of the wackier liberal
conspiracy theories.
Ace Kefford
2018-06-12 02:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.

But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while. Now it's even worse because the man
they have almost all accepted as their exalted leader believes in and
regularly repeats or in his mode of communication re-tweets conspiracy
nonsense.

Certainly a lot of elected Republicans now traffic in conspiracy theories.
John McAdams
2018-06-12 02:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while.
Let's see: who rejects the science on . . .

Fracking
GMOs
Nuclear Power
X and Y chromosones

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 19:55:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while.
Let's see: who rejects the science on . . .
Fracking
GMOs
Nuclear Power
X and Y chromosones
Do we really need to take a poll or isn't is obvious?
Please tell us more about XYY.
Is it a legacy from Bigfoot?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-12 02:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by d***@gmail.com
The test in watching this video is that if you stop it within the first 5
seconds and exclaim, "Oh f--k! I'm not watching that $hi+!", you're more
likely a Republican than a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist
would, at least, say, "Well, I'll hear this out and see where it goes." :)
http://youtu.be/bV7VuPtveVs
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Not strictly. There are nuts and those with poor thinking on both sides.
But definitely more former conservatives are becoming attracted to
conspiracies. They kind of have to when they regularly reject science,
which has been going on for a while. Now it's even worse because the man
they have almost all accepted as their exalted leader believes in and
regularly repeats or in his mode of communication re-tweets conspiracy
nonsense.
Certainly a lot of elected Republicans now traffic in conspiracy theories.
You need to read this:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-06-12 12:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.

So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.

Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.

Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
claviger
2018-06-14 14:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?

Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.

No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-15 01:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
JFK didn't cut income taxes while in office. He *proposed* a reduction but
the bill to do so was still in the House when he was assassinated.

He *did* cut the capital gains tax rate however. That WAS passed by
Congress.

So I think it'd be more accurate to say he proposed cutting the income tax
rate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
JFK didn't cut income taxes while in office. He *proposed* a reduction but
the bill to do so was still in the House when he was assassinated.
He *did* cut the capital gains tax rate however. That WAS passed by
Congress.
So I think it'd be more accurate to say he proposed cutting the income tax
rate.
A+
How about filing the bill?
claviger
2018-06-15 01:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
Marina said Nixon was one of the names on LHO enemies list.
He was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but she locked LHO in
the bathroom and probably saved Nixon's life.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 01:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
You come from a different umiverse.
Post by claviger
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Yes. Wanted to stalk is different from stalked. Learn English.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Stop the hate. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Post by claviger
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
LBJ didn't get a chance to cut taxes, He only proposed it, but they
killed him before he could do it.
LBJ got JFK's bill passed.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Get out of here. That is too intellectual a question to ask here.
Try the Nuthouse.
claviger
2018-06-16 05:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Is the belief in conspiracies becoming a left/right issue?
JFK was perceived as a Liberal President. Someone shot him with a
rifle from a building in a Conservative city in a Conservative state so
the assassin must have been a hired by Conservatives.
So yes, it was an instantaneous a Left/Right issue.
Simpleminded reasoning until the facts muddy up the political frog pond.
The assassin was a Communist sympathizer who acted on his own, and took a
sniper shot at a well known Conservative politician long before the parade
and was stalking Nixon too. That Communist sympathizer was a Castro fan
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
OK, then Nixon was a political POI to LHO. Do you know
what that means Comrade Smarty Pants?
You come from a different umiverse.
I have nothing to do with the MIT Sustainable Design Lab.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Marina mentioned Nixon was one of the names on LHO
enemies list. His was going to stalk Nixon in Dallas but
she locked LHO in the bathroom.
Yes. Wanted to stalk is different from stalked. Learn English.
He was taking note of Nixon's agenda in Dallas. Another way
to put it LHO was watching Nixons movements while in Dallas.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
Marina refused to have anything to do with that craziness.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
By today's standards JFK was definitely a Conservative, just as his
Stop the hate. JFK was proud to call himself a Liberal.
Old saying in politics: "Run Liberal but Govern from the Middle."
JFK's father was a very successful businessman. Joe Jr took after
his father and so did JFK. No Liberal would propose a major tax cut
his first term in officer as President. That was a very bold move by
JFK and he didn't like deficits either.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Banker/Investor Father and his older Brother. JFK was much more
conservative than his Vice-President. You know how we can tell?
Liberals never cut taxes to stimulate the economy. In fact their
inclination is raise taxes when the US Economy slows down.
LBJ didn't get a chance to cut taxes, He only proposed it, but they
killed him before he could do it.
So Liberals ambushed JFK to stop those tax cuts?
Post by Anthony Marsh
LBJ got JFK's bill passed.
He sure did, then boldly adopted deficit spending as the norm.
That would have been anathema to JFK.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
theory and cling to that accusation by trying to promote the excuse LHO
was a fake far-to-the-left Liberal. No matter that all facts prove LHO was
Some people do that. Ignore them.
Post by claviger
exactly who he claimed to be, an extremely Left Wing fanatic angry with
President Kennedy for not being a Far Left Liberal like himself.
Or angry with JFK for trying to assassinate his hero, Castro.
You're just not trying hard enough at this propaganda thing. What a wimp!
Yes, LHO had a teenager personality and Castro was his teenage idol. LHO
studied Marxism since he was 14 years old. So idolatry got our energetic
US President killed. His Texas tour-de-force would have carried the Lone
Star State in the next Election and propelled him into a second term in
office with even more success.
No one has ever asked the question, since LHO was a Communist sympathizer
did LHO shoot the US President to help Ho Chi Minh? Russia was supporting
North Vietnam and LHO would know that.
Get out of here. That is too intellectual a question to ask here.
Try the Nuthouse.
LHO and Delgado had talked about going to Cuba and joining
Castro after their tour of duty with USMC was over.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Files on Lee Harvey Oswald
10 posts by 3 authors
claviger
2018-06-15 00:47:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Marina was aware he was stalking Nixon and locked LHO in the bathroom.
She may have saved Nixon's life.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
No that was your idea. Did you volunteer to drive him there?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
LBJ was a Liberal who did everything opposite of JFK.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Good try at deflection, but he really didn't do much to STALK Nixon.
Stop misusing words in English like an ignorant Russian Troll.
Marina was aware he was stalking Nixon and locked LHO in the bathroom.
She may have saved Nixon's life.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and seriously thought about highjacking a commercial airliner to Cuba so
he could be with his heroes, Fidel and Che.
Yeah, and using his pregnant wife to help.
Anything like his PLOT to hijack a BUS to Cuba?
No that was your idea. Did you volunteer to drive him there?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Never let the facts get in the way of a opportunity to bash your political
enemies. So all Liberals instinctively embraced a "Conservatives Did It"
Exactly what you guys do when you call JFK a conservative to create a
phony US VERSUS THEM scenario.
LBJ was a Liberal who did everything opposite of JFK.
Ignorant. LBJ got JFK's programs passed.

The First 100 Days: Lyndon Johnson Fulfilled Kennedy's Legacy

Johnson wanted to assure the country that he would carryout the policies
of his predecessor.
By Kenneth T. Walsh, Contributor???March 5, 2009, at 12:00 p.m.
More
U.S. News & World Report

The First 100 Days: Lyndon Johnson
More

It's not a perfect measure, but it's a useful one???the 100-day standard
for gauging presidential effectiveness. The underlying truth is that
presidents tend to be most effective when they first take office, when
their leadership style seems fresh and new, when the aura of victory is
still powerful, and when their impact on Congress is usually at its
height. There is nothing magic about the number, and many presidential
aides over the years have complained that it is an artificial yardstick.
But it has been used by the public, the media, and scholars as a gauge of
presidential success and activism since Franklin D. Roosevelt pioneered
the 100-day concept when he took office in 1933. He was faced with the
calamity of the Depression???and he moved with unprecedented dispatch to
address the problem. "The first hundred days of the New Deal have served
as a model for future presidents of bold leadership and
executive-legislative harmony," writes Cambridge University historian
Anthony Badger in "FDR: The First Hundred Days." In this series, U.S. News
looks at the most far-reaching 100-day periods in presidential history,
starting with FDR. The series will run each week on Thursdays.

Lyndon B. Johnson had a specific objective in mind that guided his
presidency from the start???to out-do Franklin D. Roosevelt as the
champion of everyday Americans. LBJ got off to a fast start, but the very
traits that made his presidency so promising in the beginning???his big
ideas and ability to bend Congress to his will???proved to be the seeds of
his political destruction.

[

READ MORE: Presidents' First 100 Days ]

"Throughout his presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson consistently measured his
record against that of his political hero, FDR," writes Cambridge
University historian Anthony Badger in "FDR: The First Hundred Days." "In
April 1965 he pressed his congressional liaison man, Larry O'Brien, to
'jerk out every damn little bill you can and get them down here by the
12th' because 'on the 12th you'll have the best Hundred Days. Better than
he [FDR] did!"

That was actually after Johnson had been elected to a full term in his own
right, in 1964, but it demonstrated his mindset. Johnson, serving as John
F. Kennedy's vice president, actually had come into office by succession
after Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. He sought to capitalize
on the Kennedy's murder by moving swiftly to continue Kennedy's legacy. He
immediately pushed Congress to pass Kennedy's agenda to honor the martyred
president but also by moving far beyond it and expanding federal power
more than any president had done before, even Roosevelt.

"Johnson believed that in the months after the assassination he needed to
link himself to the deceased president, who seemed to become more popular
after his death," says Princeton historian Julian Zelizer. "And he used
that connection to build popular support for his bills. That is why
Johnson retained the services of many Cabinet officials from the Kennedy
administration."

In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Nov. 27, 1963, five
days after the assassination, Johnson asked for support in completing
Kennedy's stalled agenda. He hailed Kennedy as "the greatest leader of our
time" and said, "Let us begin. Let us continue."

He didn't match FDR in his legislative success during his first 100 days
in 1963, but eventually he exceeded Roosevelt in the extent to which he
expanded federal power in society. He also won a massive landslide in his
1964 campaign, which LBJ felt vindicated his leadership.

In those first days in 1963, he succeeded in the all-important goal of
boosting the nation's confidence. "By contrast with Mr. Obama," wrote
historian Robert Dallek in the New York Times Jan. 23, 2009, "Johnson had
no mandate to govern except for being vice president. No one expected a
Southern politician to suddenly replace the youngest man ever elected to
the White House. . . . Johnson understood that his greatest initial
challenge was to provide reassurance???to convince not just Americans but
people around the world, who looked to the United States for leadership in
the cold war, that he could measure up to the standard JFK had set as an
effective president at home and abroad."

Johnson had been a consummate legislative deal maker before Kennedy chose
him to balance the ticket as his vice presidential running mate in 1960.
But Johnson, a longtime senator from Texas, was never a member of
Kennedy's inner circle. Many liberal Democrats were skeptical of him as a
Southerner and Washington operator when he succeeded Kennedy. But Johnson
"was able to turn the country's grief into a commitment to a moral
crusade," presidential scholar Jeffrey Tulis has written. It took him
longer than 100 days, but he set Congress on the path to passing the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as well as a tax cut and Medicare. Actually, he sought
to pass more legislation, help more people, lift more Americans out of
poverty, and become more of a historic figure than FDR. And in some ways
he succeeded, under a program he called the Great Society.

"In many ways Johnson was inadequate to the demands of the modern
presidency, especially as a public educator," wrote political scientists
Sidney Milkis and Michael Nelson in "The American Presidency: Origins &
Development 1776-1998." "Unlike other twentieth-century presidents who
wanted to remake the nation, LBJ neglected, even scorned, the 'bully
pulpit.' Yet Johnson profoundly influenced the modern presidency in other
ways. He more than maintained the power and independence of the executive
office. Regrettably, his failings also brought into serious question???for
the first time since the 1930s???the widespread assumption that the
national interest is served whenever the president dominates the affairs
of state. The disillusionment with executive power that commenced late in
Johnson's tenure actually began to unravel some of the conditions that had
given rise to the modern presidency."

As the Vietnam War escalated, with soaring costs in lives and resources,
and as the nation's domestic divisions intensified over Johnson's
ambitious social programs, the president's popularity sank. He declined to
run for re-election in 1968 and left office a very unpopular man.

But in the beginning, he seemed to be a force of nature. In an interview
with three network television journalists March 15, 1964, Johnson assessed
his first 100 days. "The first priority," he said, "was to try to display
to the world that we could have continuity and transition, that the
program of President Kennedy would be carried on, that there was no need
for them to be disturbed and fearful that our constitutional system had
been endangered. To demonstrate to the people of this country that
although their leader had fallen, and we had a new president, that we must
have unity and we must close ranks, and we must work together for the good
of all America and the world."

Johnson accomplished those initial goals admirably well.

Kenneth T. Walsh, Contributor

Ken Walsh covers the White House and politics for U.S. News. He writes
the daily blog "Ken Wal... READ MORE ??

Tags: John F. Kennedy, Vice President, President, Lyndon Johnson
Loading...