Discussion:
QAnon
(too old to reply)
ajohnstone
2020-09-14 03:12:54 UTC
Permalink
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics

A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?

Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.

WWG1WGA?

https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
ajohnstone
2020-09-21 13:06:52 UTC
Permalink
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
John Corbett
2020-09-21 22:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
This is a wonderful example of fair and balanced journalism. <snicker>

As for Trump, compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party, he is a
Boy Scout.
ajohnstone
2020-09-22 03:01:12 UTC
Permalink
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.

It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.

But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.

Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?

Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
donald willis
2020-09-22 19:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
As I recall, Bill O'Reilly's commentary actually WAS fair and balanced,
usually. Hannity is just naturally unbalanced, I guess. (Play on words
intended.) Hannity, Trump's lapdog...

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 23:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
As I recall, Bill O'Reilly's commentary actually WAS fair and balanced,
usually. Hannity is just naturally unbalanced, I guess. (Play on words
intended.) Hannity, Trump's lapdog...
dcw
No, they are all liars, and now Fox is infecting the White House.
John Corbett
2020-09-22 19:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 23:41:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Sure but it is a game of one-upsmanship to see who can make up the
craziest theories and right now the Republicans are winning.
Our country is getting worse and worse and a few people at the top are
raking in all the money.
John Corbett
2020-09-24 01:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Sure but it is a game of one-upsmanship to see who can make up the
craziest theories and right now the Republicans are winning.
Our country is getting worse and worse and a few people at the top are
raking in all the money.
You mean liberals like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 19:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Sure but it is a game of one-upsmanship to see who can make up the
craziest theories and right now the Republicans are winning.
Our country is getting worse and worse and a few people at the top are
raking in all the money.
You mean liberals like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates.
No, like Koch and other rightwing nuts.
John Corbett
2020-09-26 03:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Sure but it is a game of one-upsmanship to see who can make up the
craziest theories and right now the Republicans are winning.
Our country is getting worse and worse and a few people at the top are
raking in all the money.
You mean liberals like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates.
No, like Koch and other rightwing nuts.
So you have no problem with fellow liberals raking in all the money.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Irrational beliefs are not unique to those on the right. They exist across
the political spectrum. They also are not typical.
Sure but it is a game of one-upsmanship to see who can make up the
craziest theories and right now the Republicans are winning.
Our country is getting worse and worse and a few people at the top are
raking in all the money.
You mean liberals like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates.
No, like Koch and other rightwing nuts.
So you have no problem with fellow liberals raking in all the money.
I have no trouble with Liberals being rich. YOU seemed to be the one
with the problem of Liberals being rich.

I have a problenm with the corruption of the Republicans giving money
to the rich so that the rich give them a percentage of it.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 00:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
I'm not the least bit curious. I've seen it for many years from the
rightwingers here.
Post by ajohnstone
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
The conspiracy theories of the JFK researchers are quit tame compared to
the rihtwinger. What kind of sicko could dream up Pizzagate?
Post by ajohnstone
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
Weak, in fact in almost every country there have been child abusing
religious cults.
Post by ajohnstone
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Bud
2020-09-23 01:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
I'm not the least bit curious. I've seen it for many years from the
rightwingers here.
Post by ajohnstone
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
The conspiracy theories of the JFK researchers are quit tame compared to
the rihtwinger. What kind of sicko could dream up Pizzagate?
Post by ajohnstone
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
Weak, in fact in almost every country there have been child abusing
religious cults.
I don`t think the Catholic Church is in every country.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by ajohnstone
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 23:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by ajohnstone
The provocative quote I knew would bring a reaction to a thread that i
began but which resulted in no response.
It was from an op-ed in a well-known liberal newspaper. I have noticed
that Fox News defends its actual news service from criticism by insisting
it is separate from the its op-eds such as Hannity etc which it concedes
need not be fair and balanced.
But strange thing is that you do not deny that the majority of the
supporters of QAnon are of the right-wing and are supporters of Trump.
Surely even yourself must be curious why irrational beliefs are being
promoted and what is the cause and motivation for it. Certainly the
I'm not the least bit curious. I've seen it for many years from the
rightwingers here.
Post by ajohnstone
psychology of the believers is related to the reason many differing
conspiracy theories are held about the assassination of JFK. What causes
such delusional thinking?
The conspiracy theories of the JFK researchers are quit tame compared to
the rihtwinger. What kind of sicko could dream up Pizzagate?
Post by ajohnstone
Some years ago there were many reports of satanic child abuse in the UK
that led to children being taken away from their families and it derived
from the activities of an American religious group who managed to convey
the idea of satanists sexually abusing kids to numerous social work and
Weak, in fact in almost every country there have been child abusing
religious cults.
I don`t think the Catholic Church is in every country.
Almost, but I did not single out the Catholic Church.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by ajohnstone
child-care agencies around the country by claiming legitimacy and
authoritative sources and holding conferences and seminars - and it
convinced local social workers on the ground into seeing something that
didn't exist. And that itself was no conspiracy but led to
well-intentioned people acting on misunderstood disinformation.
ajohnstone
2020-09-23 23:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Weak, in fact in almost every country there have been child abusing
religious cults.
I don't think you understood my point fully. I was trying to explain why a
conspiracy theory that there existed satanic groups around the country
abusing children and how such a belief was accepted by a number of local
social service departments responsible for children's welfare. What
happened was an American evangelical group succeeded in influence the
training of social workers into accepting that such satanist groups
existed. Reachout Trust Evangelical Christian circulated
‘confidential papers’ to social work departments and ran
local seminars. Their claims or qualifications were rarely checked. Much
of their information, particularly about cases in the United States,
unreliable.

I was not trying to relate my post with the Catholic Church long history
of child abuse and its cover-up. That was not a conspiracy other than a
conspiracy of silence.

My post should be equated with the Middle Ages witch hysteria.
ajohnstone
2020-09-28 01:30:18 UTC
Permalink
But to return to the original post - QAnon

"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."

"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"

"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."

https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593

Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Bud
2020-09-28 12:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
But to return to the original post - QAnon
"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."
"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"
"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."
https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593
I read the whole article and didn`t see one specific violent act
attributed to QAnon. How many violent acts have there been in Portland
alone?

This group seems to have the left`s panties in a bunch, which is a good
enough thing to justify it`s existence.
Post by ajohnstone
Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Seems that QAnon members associate with anti-vaxxers, Brexiteers, right
wing extremists and... hippies. Let`s contrive a conspiracy theory that
all these group are getting together and conspiring. Meanwhile, Antifa,
which acts with planning, cohesion, organization and strategy every day
across this country isn`t really a group or organization at all. Oh,
leftists...
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-29 02:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
But to return to the original post - QAnon
"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."
"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"
"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."
https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593
I read the whole article and didn`t see one specific violent act
attributed to QAnon. How many violent acts have there been in Portland
alone?
False comparison. I did not personally see Hitler kill anyone, but his
rhethoric killed milliions. Hate Speech kills.
Post by Bud
This group seems to have the left`s panties in a bunch, which is a good
enough thing to justify it`s existence.
Post by ajohnstone
Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Seems that QAnon members associate with anti-vaxxers, Brexiteers, right
wing extremists and... hippies. Let`s contrive a conspiracy theory that
all these group are getting together and conspiring. Meanwhile, Antifa,
which acts with planning, cohesion, organization and strategy every day
Antifa is not an organized group. It is an ideology.
Post by Bud
across this country isn`t really a group or organization at all. Oh,
leftists...
Bud
2020-09-30 03:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
But to return to the original post - QAnon
"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."
"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"
"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."
https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593
I read the whole article and didn`t see one specific violent act
attributed to QAnon. How many violent acts have there been in Portland
alone?
False comparison. I did not personally see Hitler kill anyone, but his
rhethoric killed milliions. Hate Speech kills.
Don`t be silly, just saying something has never hurt anyone. Action might, but words never.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
This group seems to have the left`s panties in a bunch, which is a good
enough thing to justify it`s existence.
Post by ajohnstone
Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Seems that QAnon members associate with anti-vaxxers, Brexiteers, right
wing extremists and... hippies. Let`s contrive a conspiracy theory that
all these group are getting together and conspiring. Meanwhile, Antifa,
which acts with planning, cohesion, organization and strategy every day
Antifa is not an organized group. It is an ideology.
It is an organized group of like minded individuals.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
across this country isn`t really a group or organization at all. Oh,
leftists...
Anthony Marsh
2020-10-05 14:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
But to return to the original post - QAnon
"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."
"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"
"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."
https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593
I read the whole article and didn`t see one specific violent act
attributed to QAnon. How many violent acts have there been in Portland
alone?
False comparison. I did not personally see Hitler kill anyone, but his
rhethoric killed milliions. Hate Speech kills.
Don`t be silly, just saying something has never hurt anyone. Action
might, but words never.
WRONG. the words you say can be a crime. Most ot the words you say here.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
This group seems to have the left`s panties in a bunch, which is a good
enough thing to justify it`s existence.
Post by ajohnstone
Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Seems that QAnon members associate with anti-vaxxers, Brexiteers, right
wing extremists and... hippies. Let`s contrive a conspiracy theory that
all these group are getting together and conspiring. Meanwhile, Antifa,
which acts with planning, cohesion, organization and strategy every day
Antifa is not an organized group. It is an ideology.
It is an organized group of like minded individuals
THE HEAD OF hOMELAND seCURITY testified that Antifa is not an organized
group. It is a movement,

.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
across this country isn`t really a group or organization at all. Oh,
leftists...
Bud
2020-10-06 23:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
But to return to the original post - QAnon
"It is, however, an amorphous edifice that keeps changing, sometimes
overlapping with other conspiracy myths, including anti-Semitic ones."
"QAnon functions like a meta-conspiracy theory,"
"one of the most successful and dangerous conspiracy theories on the net
today."
https://www.dw.com/en/why-the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-gaining-popularity/a-55066593
I read the whole article and didn`t see one specific violent act
attributed to QAnon. How many violent acts have there been in Portland
alone?
False comparison. I did not personally see Hitler kill anyone, but his
rhethoric killed milliions. Hate Speech kills.
Don`t be silly, just saying something has never hurt anyone. Action
might, but words never.
WRONG. the words you say can be a crime.
Only with an underlying threat of action.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Most ot the words you say here.
If leftists had their way they would dictate what everyone could say or
think.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
This group seems to have the left`s panties in a bunch, which is a good
enough thing to justify it`s existence.
Post by ajohnstone
Britain has the second-largest amount of QAnon sharing, followed by
Canada, Australia and Germany.
Seems that QAnon members associate with anti-vaxxers, Brexiteers, right
wing extremists and... hippies. Let`s contrive a conspiracy theory that
all these group are getting together and conspiring. Meanwhile, Antifa,
which acts with planning, cohesion, organization and strategy every day
Antifa is not an organized group. It is an ideology.
It is an organized group of like minded individuals
THE HEAD OF hOMELAND seCURITY testified that Antifa is not an organized
group. It is a movement,
It is an organized group of like minded individuals who act in concert.
Post by Anthony Marsh
.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
across this country isn`t really a group or organization at all. Oh,
leftists...
donald willis
2020-09-22 19:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
This is a wonderful example of fair and balanced journalism. <snicker>
As for Trump, compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party, he is a
Boy Scout.
Yeah, sure. He sucks up to terrorists who have their "enemies" beheaded
and dismembered. He's the Clown Prince to the Crown Prince....

dcw
MR. X
2020-09-24 01:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
This is a wonderful example of fair and balanced journalism. <snicker>
As for Trump, compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party, he is a
Boy Scout.
Yeah, sure. He sucks up to terrorists who have their "enemies" beheaded
and dismembered. He's the Clown Prince to the Crown Prince....
dcw
Does Joe Biden know that he is running for POTUS? Did you notice that
Biden has had his mask inside out about 5 times?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-24 22:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MR. X
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
This is a wonderful example of fair and balanced journalism. <snicker>
As for Trump, compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party, he is a
Boy Scout.
Yeah, sure. He sucks up to terrorists who have their "enemies" beheaded
and dismembered. He's the Clown Prince to the Crown Prince....
dcw
Does Joe Biden know that he is running for POTUS? Did you notice that
Biden has had his mask inside out about 5 times?
Has had? What do you mean? Worn it inside? As people should?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 00:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
This is a wonderful example of fair and balanced journalism. <snicker>
As for Trump, compared to the leadership of the Democrat Party, he is a
Boy Scout.
Is he part of that Boy Scout settlement to pay boys that were abused?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 00:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
"...QAnon is an elaborate fiction dreamed up by Trump fans to meet the
Maybe, but it is a real person, maybe not even related to Trump who just
likes to cause trouble.
Post by ajohnstone
psychological needs of those who cannot allow themselves to admit what is
plain as day to everyone else: that the man they voted for and support is
mendacious, narcissistic, incompetent, corrupt and horrifically unfit,
How come you're allowed to say that and I'm not?
Should I just call him a bloody wanker, because McAdams is not smart
enough to figure out what that means?
Post by ajohnstone
both morally and intellectually, for his office. He is so ostentatiously
unfit to be president that the only way even his most ardent supporters
can justify his position is to elevate their own denial into a baroque
theology in which his opponents are Satanic pedophiles, and he is the
defender of the children..."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/20/qanon-conspiracy-child-abuse-truth-trump
Bud
2020-09-23 01:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics
A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?
Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?

Isn`t the overreaction to police shooting blacks merely paranoid
delusion when you consider what a tiny threat it actually is to black
people? Isn`t this overblown violent reaction a threat to democracy?
Post by ajohnstone
WWG1WGA?
https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
ajohnstone
2020-09-23 23:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

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

No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...

Yeah, i've heard it all before.

I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
John McAdams
2020-09-23 23:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
You need to face the fact -- and I know you don't want to -- that most
of the bad things that happen to black people are the result of
dysfunction in the black community.

Does "systemic racism" cause blacks, 13% of the population, to commit
nearly half of all murders?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Does "systemic racism" cause 72% of black children to be born out of
wedlock?

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Out_of-Wedlock.pdf

How come when there really was "systemic racism" many fewer black kids
were born out of wedlock?

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Illegitimate_Early.pdf

Are you even aware of the consequences of this?

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Illegitimacy_effects.pdf
Post by ajohnstone
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
You don't address inequality by rioting and looting. That merely
reinforced inequality.

Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
ajohnstone
2020-09-24 01:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say

"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by
our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."

"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."

And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.

"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."

I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
John McAdams
2020-09-24 01:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by
our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.

When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."

Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?

Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.

It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."

And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.

You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
ajohnstone
2020-09-24 12:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted.
What you have done is selectively picked some data and assumed that it is
related to the problem America faces. You engage in a form of denialism.

Correlation does not imply causation. You try to insinuate by associating
out of wedlock figures with the murder rate that it reflects a moral or
cultural decline. You cite single-parent families statistics but you
present no reason why that it is so. It is because a soundbite is better
than some actual scientific investigation.

The reason that the share of births that are out-of-wedlock has increased
from 37.5 to 71 percent since 1970, is because although births to black
unmarried women have fallen considerably, married black couples have cut
back even further on childbearing. And if married black couples are having
far fewer children than before and are cutting back even faster than
single women, the overall percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock
will rise, owing nothing to the supposedly irresponsible behaviors of
single black folks.

Jencks and Peterson in 'The Urban Underclass', note that from 1960 to
1987, there was a massive decline in the number of children being born to
married black couples. If black couples had continued to have children by
1987 at the same rates as they had them in 1960, the percentage of black
births that were out of wedlock would have only risen from 23 to 29
percent, rather than nearly tripling over that period. In 1960, married
black couples could be expected to have 3.5 children on average, but by
the late ’80s, they were averaging less than one child per family,
meaning the average number of kids born to married black couples fell by
nearly three-fourths! Those numbers remain the same today, suggesting that
it is the falloff in births to black two-parent families that explains the
rising out-of-wedlock share of black births overall. It has nothing to do
with an increase in irresponsible sexual activity or a cultural desire for
bearing kids outside of marriage.

You present what America is facing ahistorical, totally ignoring the long
history of segregation and discrimination that has led to poverty - and it
is poverty that is the major contributing factor to under-achievement and
crime. African-Americans tend to offend more because they tend to be more
disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public
services, and so on.

The vast majority of homicide victims are killed by people of their own
race. Why not talk about the prevalence of white-on-white homicides? A
2011 FBI report showed that 86% of white American victims were killed by
other white people. Whites are the largest racial group in America, and
commit the majority of crimes.

And of course you know one of the reasons why ALL America's murder and
suicides rates are higher than comparative countries is the availability
of guns.

You scramble for any excuse for the strong lingering racist sentiments
that exist in certain sectors of the US population, a legacy of the past.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2020-09-24 16:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted.
What you have done is selectively picked some data and assumed that it is
related to the problem America faces. You engage in a form of denialism.
Correlation does not imply causation. You try to insinuate by associating
out of wedlock figures with the murder rate that it reflects a moral or
cultural decline. You cite single-parent families statistics but you
present no reason why that it is so. It is because a soundbite is better
than some actual scientific investigation.
The reason that the share of births that are out-of-wedlock has increased
from 37.5 to 71 percent since 1970, is because although births to black
unmarried women have fallen considerably, married black couples have cut
back even further on childbearing. And if married black couples are having
far fewer children than before and are cutting back even faster than
single women, the overall percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock
will rise, owing nothing to the supposedly irresponsible behaviors of
single black folks.
Jencks and Peterson in 'The Urban Underclass', note that from 1960 to
1987, there was a massive decline in the number of children being born to
married black couples. If black couples had continued to have children by
1987 at the same rates as they had them in 1960, the percentage of black
births that were out of wedlock would have only risen from 23 to 29
percent, rather than nearly tripling over that period. In 1960, married
black couples could be expected to have 3.5 children on average, but by
the late ’80s, they were averaging less than one child per family,
meaning the average number of kids born to married black couples fell by
nearly three-fourths! Those numbers remain the same today, suggesting that
it is the falloff in births to black two-parent families that explains the
rising out-of-wedlock share of black births overall. It has nothing to do
with an increase in irresponsible sexual activity or a cultural desire for
bearing kids outside of marriage.
Isn't it a fact that as a group or country moves away from poverty and
into the middle class, they have less children? Hasn't the birth rate in
individual countries declined as they've become less impoverished? Isn't
this a natural consequence of a less rural / more urban habitat, along
with incremental improvements in standards of living (indoor plumbing,
electricity, etc.)

Looking at it another way, then doesn't that drop in child-rate among the
black married couples imply their lot is relatively better than the
parents or grandparents, other things being equal?

Or would you suggest things are just as bad as ever across the board and
there are other reasons for the declining black married child-rate?

Just curious how you see the meaning of the declining black married child
rate, and to what you attribute that.

Hank
ajohnstone
2020-09-24 22:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Indeed prosperity is one of the major factors for the global fall in
fertility rates.

The other influence is female empowerment and easy access to family
planning.

Is the campaign against Planned Parenthood facilitating this?

In reference to poverty, one should distinguish absolute from relative
poverty. America suffers from the latter. Deprivation does not equate with
destitution.

It may appear that we are far better off than workers of previous
generations, but compared with what is produced by society and in what
quantities the percentage share of the total wealth is considerably lower
than that which went to their forefathers.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 21:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Indeed prosperity is one of the major factors for the global fall in
fertility rates.
The other influence is female empowerment and easy access to family
planning.
Does poor nutrition have anything to do with it?
Post by ajohnstone
Is the campaign against Planned Parenthood facilitating this?
In reference to poverty, one should distinguish absolute from relative
poverty. America suffers from the latter. Deprivation does not equate with
destitution.
It may appear that we are far better off than workers of previous
generations, but compared with what is produced by society and in what
quantities the percentage share of the total wealth is considerably lower
than that which went to their forefathers.
ajohnstone
2020-09-26 03:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by ajohnstone
The other influence is female empowerment and easy access to family
planning.
Does poor nutrition have anything to do with it?
Mainly it is what i said and woman's empowerment also means access to
education and jobs. Even in patriarchal societies such as Muslim countries
women have gained increased control over their bodies and particularly
when urbanized.

In the US one of the detrimental influences on family planning are the
various restrictions imposed by the health insurers as well as many of the
health providers are religious denominations against the use of birth
control. Over-the-counter contraceptive pills are not as as widespread in
the US as in other developed nations.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 21:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted.
What you have done is selectively picked some data and assumed that it is
related to the problem America faces. You engage in a form of denialism.
Correlation does not imply causation. You try to insinuate by associating
out of wedlock figures with the murder rate that it reflects a moral or
cultural decline. You cite single-parent families statistics but you
present no reason why that it is so. It is because a soundbite is better
than some actual scientific investigation.
The reason that the share of births that are out-of-wedlock has increased
from 37.5 to 71 percent since 1970, is because although births to black
unmarried women have fallen considerably, married black couples have cut
back even further on childbearing. And if married black couples are having
far fewer children than before and are cutting back even faster than
single women, the overall percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock
will rise, owing nothing to the supposedly irresponsible behaviors of
single black folks.
Jencks and Peterson in 'The Urban Underclass', note that from 1960 to
1987, there was a massive decline in the number of children being born to
married black couples. If black couples had continued to have children by
1987 at the same rates as they had them in 1960, the percentage of black
births that were out of wedlock would have only risen from 23 to 29
percent, rather than nearly tripling over that period. In 1960, married
black couples could be expected to have 3.5 children on average, but by
the late ???80s, they were averaging less than one child per family,
meaning the average number of kids born to married black couples fell by
nearly three-fourths! Those numbers remain the same today, suggesting that
it is the falloff in births to black two-parent families that explains the
rising out-of-wedlock share of black births overall. It has nothing to do
with an increase in irresponsible sexual activity or a cultural desire for
bearing kids outside of marriage.
Isn't it a fact that as a group or country moves away from poverty and
into the middle class, they have less children? Hasn't the birth rate in
Good point. Maybe you think the government pays poor people to have more
chiildren. If they can't work, at least they can reproduce, right?
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
individual countries declined as they've become less impoverished? Isn't
this a natural consequence of a less rural / more urban habitat, along
with incremental improvements in standards of living (indoor plumbing,
electricity, etc.)
COULD be that the apartments aren't big enough in the over crowded
cities, right? Or white men can't get it up.
Oh, that's the movie White Men Can't Jump.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Looking at it another way, then doesn't that drop in child-rate among the
black married couples imply their lot is relatively better than the
parents or grandparents, other things being equal?
Or would you suggest things are just as bad as ever across the board and
there are other reasons for the declining black married child-rate?
Just curious how you see the meaning of the declining black married child
rate, and to what you attribute that.
Hank
John McAdams
2020-09-24 23:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted.
What you have done is selectively picked some data and assumed that it is
related to the problem America faces. You engage in a form of denialism.
You are the one in denial. The out of wedlock births are a disaster.
Post by ajohnstone
Correlation does not imply causation. You try to insinuate by associating
out of wedlock figures with the murder rate that it reflects a moral or
cultural decline.
Are you aware of the consequences of being born out of wedlock for
kids?

Barack Obama was willing to be honest about that:

https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094

<Quote on>

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We
know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent
households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were
children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a
father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime;
nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely
to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems,
or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the
foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

<end quote>
Post by ajohnstone
You cite single-parent families statistics but you
present no reason why that it is so. It is because a soundbite is better
than some actual scientific investigation.
It's a disaster, regardless of the reason.

But you want a reason: the sexual revolution of the 60s. Add to that
a Great Society that made being on welfare must more tolerable, and
lacked incentives to work.
Post by ajohnstone
The reason that the share of births that are out-of-wedlock has increased
from 37.5 to 71 percent since 1970, is because although births to black
unmarried women have fallen considerably, married black couples have cut
back even further on childbearing. And if married black couples are having
far fewer children than before and are cutting back even faster than
single women, the overall percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock
will rise, owing nothing to the supposedly irresponsible behaviors of
single black folks.
Jencks and Peterson in 'The Urban Underclass', note that from 1960 to
1987, there was a massive decline in the number of children being born to
married black couples. If black couples had continued to have children by
1987 at the same rates as they had them in 1960, the percentage of black
births that were out of wedlock would have only risen from 23 to 29
percent, rather than nearly tripling over that period. In 1960, married
black couples could be expected to have 3.5 children on average, but by
the late ’80s, they were averaging less than one child per family,
meaning the average number of kids born to married black couples fell by
nearly three-fourths! Those numbers remain the same today, suggesting that
it is the falloff in births to black two-parent families that explains the
rising out-of-wedlock share of black births overall. It has nothing to do
with an increase in irresponsible sexual activity or a cultural desire for
bearing kids outside of marriage.
It has *everything* to go with irresponsible sexual activity or a
cultural desire for bearing kids outside of marriage.

If you go here:

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/national/asrh/nc-est2019-asr5h.xlsx

And then look at the Excel sheet titled "Black," you will see that in
2010 there were 13,019,510 blacks in the US under 18.

And in 2018 there were 13,141,269.

About 70% of all those kids were born out of wedlock.

That is a disaster.
Post by ajohnstone
You present what America is facing ahistorical, totally ignoring the long
history of segregation and discrimination that has led to poverty - and it
is poverty that is the major contributing factor to under-achievement and
crime. African-Americans tend to offend more because they tend to be more
disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public
services, and so on.
You are ignoring the data. Why were only 12% of black kids born out
of wedlock in 1917.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Illegitimate_Early.pdf

Was there less segregation and discrimination back then?
Post by ajohnstone
The vast majority of homicide victims are killed by people of their own
race. Why not talk about the prevalence of white-on-white homicides? A
2011 FBI report showed that 86% of white American victims were killed by
other white people. Whites are the largest racial group in America, and
commit the majority of crimes.
But blacks commit crimes to a hugely *disproportionate* degree.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Blacks, 13% of the population commit nearly half of all murders.

Mostly against other blacks.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course you know one of the reasons why ALL America's murder and
suicides rates are higher than comparative countries is the availability
of guns.
Nonsense.
Post by ajohnstone
You scramble for any excuse for the strong lingering racist sentiments
that exist in certain sectors of the US population, a legacy of the past.
It's really sleazy to accuse somebody who presents you with data that
contradicts your favored narrative of being a racist.

It's obvious you feel really good about yourself being "anti-racist,"
and thinking that if all those *other* white people quit being racist
things would be fine for black people.

It's just not that simple.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2020-09-25 00:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted.
What you have done is selectively picked some data and assumed that it is
related to the problem America faces. You engage in a form of denialism.
Correlation does not imply causation. You try to insinuate by associating
out of wedlock figures with the murder rate that it reflects a moral or
cultural decline. You cite single-parent families statistics but you
present no reason why that it is so. It is because a soundbite is better
than some actual scientific investigation.
The reason that the share of births that are out-of-wedlock has increased
from 37.5 to 71 percent since 1970, is because although births to black
unmarried women have fallen considerably, married black couples have cut
back even further on childbearing. And if married black couples are having
far fewer children than before and are cutting back even faster than
single women, the overall percentage of births that are out-of-wedlock
will rise, owing nothing to the supposedly irresponsible behaviors of
single black folks.
Jencks and Peterson in 'The Urban Underclass', note that from 1960 to
1987, there was a massive decline in the number of children being born to
married black couples. If black couples had continued to have children by
1987 at the same rates as they had them in 1960, the percentage of black
births that were out of wedlock would have only risen from 23 to 29
percent, rather than nearly tripling over that period. In 1960, married
black couples could be expected to have 3.5 children on average, but by
the late ’80s, they were averaging less than one child per family,
meaning the average number of kids born to married black couples fell by
nearly three-fourths! Those numbers remain the same today, suggesting that
it is the falloff in births to black two-parent families that explains the
rising out-of-wedlock share of black births overall. It has nothing to do
with an increase in irresponsible sexual activity or a cultural desire for
bearing kids outside of marriage.
You present what America is facing ahistorical, totally ignoring the long
history of segregation and discrimination that has led to poverty - and it
is poverty that is the major contributing factor to under-achievement and
crime. African-Americans tend to offend more because they tend to be more
disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public
services, and so on.
The vast majority of homicide victims are killed by people of their own
race. Why not talk about the prevalence of white-on-white homicides? A
2011 FBI report showed that 86% of white American victims were killed by
other white people. Whites are the largest racial group in America, and
commit the majority of crimes.
Well, let`s look at the most recent murder statistics I could find,
2018...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

Seems white people killed 2,677 people in 2018. Black people killed
2,600.

Since white people are around 60% of the population, and black people
are around 12%, this makes a black person about 4 times more likely to
commit a murder than a white person. If white people killed at the rate
black people did, they would kill around 10,000 people a year.

Also, black people kill whites at over twice the rate that whites kill
blacks, despite the huge discrepancy in population.
Post by ajohnstone
And of course you know one of the reasons why ALL America's murder and
suicides rates are higher than comparative countries is the availability
of guns.
Wrong. Guns provide no reason to shoot yourself or others.
Post by ajohnstone
You scramble for any excuse for the strong lingering racist sentiments
that exist in certain sectors of the US population, a legacy of the past.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 00:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.
When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."
So YOU can't figure out who the vitim is?
Post by John McAdams
Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?
Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
PURE RACIST EHETORIC.
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.
It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."
They were mocking the police excuse for killing unarmed black people.
Post by John McAdams
And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.
Succeed in what? Staying alive.
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.
We ignore YOU because we know what you are.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2020-09-25 01:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.
When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."
So YOU can't figure out who the vitim is?
The two white guys in jail. They are political prisoners.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?
Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
PURE RACIST EHETORIC.
<snicker> Facts are racist.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.
It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."
They were mocking the police excuse for killing unarmed black people.
They created a false narrative. It is like what Goebbels supposedly
said, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the
truth”.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.
Succeed in what? Staying alive.
Not at the rate they kill each other.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.
We ignore YOU because we know what you are.
Someone who tells the truth you don`t want to hear.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 21:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.
When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."
So YOU can't figure out who the vitim is?
The two white guys in jail. They are political prisoners.
So you on the side of the racists.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?
Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
PURE RACIST EHETORIC.
<snicker> Facts are racist.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.
It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."
They were mocking the police excuse for killing unarmed black people.
They created a false narrative. It is like what Goebbels supposedly
said, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the
truth”.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.
Succeed in what? Staying alive.
Not at the rate they kill each other.
Racist. Show me the statistics.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.
We ignore YOU because we know what you are.
Someone who tells the truth you don`t want to hear.
Who? Not you.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
2020-09-25 23:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.
When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."
So YOU can't figure out who the vitim is?
The two white guys in jail. They are political prisoners.
So you on the side of the racists.
You don`t think white people should be able to defend themselves.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?
Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
PURE RACIST EHETORIC.
<snicker> Facts are racist.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.
It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."
They were mocking the police excuse for killing unarmed black people.
They created a false narrative. It is like what Goebbels supposedly
said, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the
truth”.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.
Succeed in what? Staying alive.
Not at the rate they kill each other.
Racist. Show me the statistics.
<snicker> What are you going to do with facts, Tony, they can only get
in the way of your false narratives.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.
We ignore YOU because we know what you are.
Someone who tells the truth you don`t want to hear.
Who?
Trump.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Not you.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 00:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
King had to make the best of the riots he could, rhetorically, but
that doesn't mean he thought they were a good tactic.
When riots broke out in Memphis during King's last days, he was
distraught. He knew they discredited him movement.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim. I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
You are begging the question as to who is the "victim."
Are whites forcing blacks to have 72% of their children out of
wedlock?
Are whites forcing blacks, 13% of the population, to commit almost
half of all murders? And mostly against other blacks.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
The reaction to a bunch of pampered twits engaged in a silly show of
virtue signaling is perfectly rational.
It started with a lie: "hands up don't shoot."
And it continues with a lie: white people have to quit being racist
and let blacks succeed.
You are simply ignoring the data and facts I've posted. They would
cause you cognitive dissonance.
Ever notice how when you allow racism here we hve dozens of posts, but
when we stick to the JFK assassination we only have about 4 of 5?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
ajohnstone
2020-09-25 00:13:31 UTC
Permalink
They would
Post by John McAdams
cause you cognitive dissonance.
.John
Too many Americans already suffer from such a condition when it comes to
political policy.

For many Americans Tony Blair is up there with Winston Churchill and
Margaret Thatcher. When he was faced with a number of public order
incidents caused by people with mental health problems Blair set about
recruiting community psychiatric nurses.

I hear a lot of protests against the defund the police slogan ...but it is
accompanied by a deafening silence to the calls for increase funding for
the psychiatric services ...to pay more for social workers...for earlier
intervention before it escalates to a police confrontation.

Instead, the funding of those welfare departments has been permitted to
reduce year after year. Access to psychiatric care has grown more and more
difficult to acquire. There is a mental health crisis in America and very
little is being done to tackle it.

It is all a matter of priorities and as i have no horse in the race, i can
accuse both parties of being culpable in creating such a sad situation
that the many Americans in need of mental illness treatment are denied it.

Useful reading

https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/special/2020/09/23/barriers-limit-mental-health-care-services-minorities/5864255002/
Bud
2020-09-25 00:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by
our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.

Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
ajohnstone
2020-09-25 14:05:23 UTC
Permalink
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".

But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.

"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation,
any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil

Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and “reasonable” viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not “actual facts.”...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
John Corbett
2020-09-25 19:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation,
any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and “reasonable” viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not “actual facts.”...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot. It could have been a
warning shot. If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him. Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Bud
2020-09-27 17:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Post by Anthony Marsh
If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
The cop who was shot was through the door. He was the only cop to enter, and he was shot immediately after entering. Brianna and Walker were down a hallway in front of him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him.
The cop may have some idea considering Walker was standing in front of him shooting him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Racist against blinds?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-29 02:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
The cop who was shot was through the door. He was the only cop to enter, and he was shot immediately after entering. Brianna and Walker were down a hallway in front of him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him.
The cop may have some idea considering Walker was standing in front of him shooting him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Racist against blinds?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Bud
2020-09-30 03:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at.
Which is why he wasn`t prosecuted.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
The cop who was shot was through the door. He was the only cop to enter, and he was shot immediately after entering. Brianna and Walker were down a hallway in front of him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him.
The cop may have some idea considering Walker was standing in front of him shooting him.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Racist against blinds?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
John Corbett
2020-09-30 03:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Here is what is not in dispute. Kenneth Walker fired the first shot. He
has admitted that. He his shot struck one of the cops in the leg. When he
did that, the cops were justified in returning fire. Whether Walker was
justified in firing the first shot or not is irrelevant to the issue of
whether the cops were justified in returning fire. That means it was not a
crime for them to fire at Walker whether Walker was justified in firing at
them or not. The fact that their shots missed Walker and struck Breonna
Taylor does not make the actions of the cops criminal. The only crime that
has been alleged was the cop at the back door who fired blind shots
through the door, wantonly endangering those in other apartments. The
grand jury indicted him for that. Based on the facts, the grand jury
reached the proper conclusion. So why are people rioting in protest?
Anthony Marsh
2020-10-05 14:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Here is what is not in dispute. Kenneth Walker fired the first shot. He
has admitted that. He his shot struck one of the cops in the leg. When he
did that, the cops were justified in returning fire. Whether Walker was
justified in firing the first shot or not is irrelevant to the issue of
whether the cops were justified in returning fire. That means it was not a
crime for them to fire at Walker whether Walker was justified in firing at
them or not. The fact that their shots missed Walker and struck Breonna
You are mixed up. Not everyone was shooting at Breanna. Most were shooting
at the front door. Only one was shooting at Breanna from the SIDE of the
house. Just give him up so that you can let the others go.
Post by John Corbett
Taylor does not make the actions of the cops criminal. The only crime that
has been alleged was the cop at the back door who fired blind shots
through the door, wantonly endangering those in other apartments. The
grand jury indicted him for that. Based on the facts, the grand jury
reached the proper conclusion. So why are people rioting in protest?
John Corbett
2020-10-06 03:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Here is what is not in dispute. Kenneth Walker fired the first shot. He
has admitted that. He his shot struck one of the cops in the leg. When he
did that, the cops were justified in returning fire. Whether Walker was
justified in firing the first shot or not is irrelevant to the issue of
whether the cops were justified in returning fire. That means it was not a
crime for them to fire at Walker whether Walker was justified in firing at
them or not. The fact that their shots missed Walker and struck Breonna
You are mixed up. Not everyone was shooting at Breanna. Most were shooting
at the front door. Only one was shooting at Breanna from the SIDE of the
house. Just give him up so that you can let the others go.
What are these? Your alternate facts? The cops were shooting at her
boyfriend after he shot one of them. Breonna was hit be shots intended for
him. No evidence was produced that any of the cops were deliberately fired
at her which is why there was no indictment for a homicide of any kind,
intentional, reckless, or negligent.
Bud
2020-10-06 23:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Here is what is not in dispute. Kenneth Walker fired the first shot. He
has admitted that. He his shot struck one of the cops in the leg. When he
did that, the cops were justified in returning fire. Whether Walker was
justified in firing the first shot or not is irrelevant to the issue of
whether the cops were justified in returning fire. That means it was not a
crime for them to fire at Walker whether Walker was justified in firing at
them or not. The fact that their shots missed Walker and struck Breonna
You are mixed up. Not everyone was shooting at Breanna. Most were shooting
at the front door. Only one was shooting at Breanna from the SIDE of the
house. Just give him up so that you can let the others go.
What are these? Your alternate facts? The cops were shooting at her
boyfriend after he shot one of them. Breonna was hit be shots intended for
him. No evidence was produced that any of the cops were deliberately fired
at her which is why there was no indictment for a homicide of any kind,
intentional, reckless, or negligent.
Marsh represents the kind of leftist the system is supposed to try to
satisfy, people who make things up to suit themselves.
Anthony Marsh
2020-10-07 03:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot.
Just where he hit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It could have been a
warning shot.
In the upper thigh?
Anywhere. You can't probe that he knew what ht was shooting at. Were the
intruders wearing police uniforms? I used to wear a police uniform and I
wasn't a cop. A Boston museum was robbed by 1 guys wearing police
uniforms. Mafia.
Here is what is not in dispute. Kenneth Walker fired the first shot. He
Silly. YOU are in dispute. Puting out false information to cover up for
racists.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
has admitted that. He his shot struck one of the cops in the leg. When he
First you can't prove that he shot at anyone. He could not see who it
was. Were they wearing police uniforms or Hawaiian shirts?
HE did not know they were cops. You can't prove intent. They might have
been the KKK. A man has a right to defend himself in his own home.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
did that, the cops were justified in returning fire. Whether Walker was
THE COPS REWROTE THEIR REPORTE TO COVER UP.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
justified in firing the first shot or not is irrelevant to the issue of
whether the cops were justified in returning fire. That means it was not a
crime for them to fire at Walker whether Walker was justified in firing at
them or not. The fact that their shots missed Walker and struck Breonna
You are mixed up. Not everyone was shooting at Breanna. Most were shooting
at the front door. Only one was shooting at Breanna from the SIDE of the
house. Just give him up so that you can let the others go.
What are these? Your alternate facts? The cops were shooting at her
boyfriend after he shot one of them. Breonna was hit be shots intended for
him. No evidence was produced that any of the cops were deliberately fired
false. She was in the bedroom, he was at the front door.
Those are two different places. The cop who shot her was shooting from
the SIDE of the house. Not part of the group at the front door.
YOU DON'T even know the difference between FRONT and SIDE.
You don't even know your ass from your elbow!
Post by John Corbett
at her which is why there was no indictment for a homicide of any kind,
intentional, reckless, or negligent.
John Corbett
2020-09-27 20:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot. It could have been a
warning shot. If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
First of all, I don't need to prove anything. People who do the accusing have the burden of proof. As for Kenneth Walker, he admitted he fired the first shot
at the cops, believing they were intruders. A few days ago I wrote that both his action and the cops returning fire could be justified. This story from NBC
pretty much says the same thing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kenneth-walker-police-can-both-claim-kentucky-law-protects-conduct-n1241010
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Which also wouldn't have been a crime. Friendly fire accidents do occur during
gun battles. These aren't crimes. One of the cops was charged with wanton
endangerment. That seems to be the only charge that had merit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him. Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Yes it was which is why Hankinson was fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Thanks for that observation, Captain Obvious.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Negligence is racist???
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Fascinating how your mind works. Illogical but fascinating.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-29 02:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot. It could have been a
warning shot. If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
First of all, I don't need to prove anything. People who do the accusing have the burden of proof. As for Kenneth Walker, he admitted he fired the first shot
at the cops, believing they were intruders. A few days ago I wrote that both his action and the cops returning fire could be justified. This story from NBC
pretty much says the same thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kenneth-walker-police-can-both-claim-kentucky-law-protects-conduct-n1241010
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Which also wouldn't have been a crime. Friendly fire accidents do occur during
I didnt say crime. Malfeasence,
Post by John Corbett
gun battles. These aren't crimes. One of the cops was charged with wanton
endangerment. That seems to be the only charge that had merit.
Wrong. That was the least they could do.
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him. Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Yes it was which is why Hankinson was fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Thanks for that observation, Captain Obvious.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Negligence is racist???
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Fascinating how your mind works. Illogical but fascinating.
I think that most people could see that I was being sardonic.
John Corbett
2020-09-30 03:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot. It could have been a
warning shot. If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
First of all, I don't need to prove anything. People who do the accusing have the burden of proof. As for Kenneth Walker, he admitted he fired the first shot
at the cops, believing they were intruders. A few days ago I wrote that both his action and the cops returning fire could be justified. This story from NBC
pretty much says the same thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kenneth-walker-police-can-both-claim-kentucky-law-protects-conduct-n1241010
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Which also wouldn't have been a crime. Friendly fire accidents do occur during
I didnt say crime. Malfeasence,
Grand juries don't indict for malfeasance. They only indict for crimes.
There might be grounds for a civil action but that is beyond the scope of
the grand jury to determine.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
gun battles. These aren't crimes. One of the cops was charged with wanton
endangerment. That seems to be the only charge that had merit.
Wrong. That was the least they could do.
So tell us what other crimes they could've or should've been indicted for
and your evidence to support such crimes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him. Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Yes it was which is why Hankinson was fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Thanks for that observation, Captain Obvious.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Negligence is racist???
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Fascinating how your mind works. Illogical but fascinating.
I think that most people could see that I was being sardonic.
How can we tell the difference between when you are being sardonic and
when you are being silly. We have come to expect one of those.
Anthony Marsh
2020-10-05 14:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
Here is what is not in dispute. Breona Taylor's boyfriend fired on the
cops. He might have been justified in doing so if he didn't hear them
YOU can't prove that. YOU Can't prove where he shot. It could have been a
warning shot. If he shot at somemeone why couldn't he hit them? Could he
hit anyone through the door?
First of all, I don't need to prove anything. People who do the accusing have the burden of proof. As for Kenneth Walker, he admitted he fired the first shot
at the cops, believing they were intruders. A few days ago I wrote that both his action and the cops returning fire could be justified. This story from NBC
pretty much says the same thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kenneth-walker-police-can-both-claim-kentucky-law-protects-conduct-n1241010
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
announce they were cops, but that doesn't change the fact the cops were
Silly. They could have accidentally shot one of their fellow cops who
went in the back door. Very unprofessional to kill a fellow cop.
Which also wouldn't have been a crime. Friendly fire accidents do occur during
I didnt say crime. Malfeasence,
Grand juries don't indict for malfeasance. They only indict for crimes.
There might be grounds for a civil action but that is beyond the scope of
the grand jury to determine.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
gun battles. These aren't crimes. One of the cops was charged with wanton
endangerment. That seems to be the only charge that had merit.
Wrong. That was the least they could do.
So tell us what other crimes they could've or should've been indicted for
and your evidence to support such crimes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
fully justified in returning fire. Taylor was hit be stray bullets fired
at her boyfriend. Her death was accidental, not the result of an
You can't prove that the cops knew where the boyfriend was and were
aiming AT him. Just shooting wildly at random is grounds for being fired.
Yes it was which is why Hankinson was fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
intentional, reckless, or negligent homicide. There was no criminal charge
I don't think there is anyway to prove that the cops went there
intentionally to shoot and kill a specific person. How would they know a
priori who was there and who was where?
Thanks for that observation, Captain Obvious.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
that would have been appropriate regarding her death. The criminal charges
that were brought were due to reckless firing by Officer Hankinson into
other apartments. He violated both LPD policy and state law when he fired
Oh, ya think? You have to go that far to find any mistakes?
Post by John Corbett
without having a clear target. He fired through a glass door that was
covered with blinds.
That sounds like a great idea. Just fire in every direction at random.
Is there any length you won't go to to cover up for the racists?
Negligence is racist???
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe you could say that MLK was shot by accident!
Fascinating how your mind works. Illogical but fascinating.
I think that most people could see that I was being sardonic.
How can we tell the difference between when you are being sardonic and
when you are being silly. We have come to expect one of those.
I think I invented an emoji for that, ;)>

Now, ask me what it means!
John Corbett
2020-09-27 20:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Not sure but I might have forgot to include the link to the NBC story
before I sent my reply to Marsh. In case I did, here it is:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kenneth-walker-police-can-both-claim-kentucky-law-protects-conduct-n1241010
Bud
2020-09-25 19:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. Arbery is dead because he
attacked someone with a gun. One of the quickest ways I can think of to
end up on an autopsy table.
Post by Bud
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
The facts are as I portrayed them. The cop were executing a legal search
warrant issued by a judge. Brianna Taylor`s boyfriend shot at the cops,
striking one of the in the leg. The cops returned fire, and Brionna Taylor
was struck and killed by this return fire. Facts don`t stop being facts
because they don`t fit some liberal narrative or agenda.
Post by Bud
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation,
any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and “reasonable” viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not “actual facts.”...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
<snicker> The left hates Tucker Carlson and the truth he speaks. Just
like they think they can hurt Trump by smearing him with out of context
half-truths, but only end up making him more popular they do this with
Carlson also. It doesn`t occur to them to actually show where what he says
is wrong, because they can`t.
donald willis
2020-09-25 21:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. Arbery is dead because he
attacked someone with a gun. One of the quickest ways I can think of to
end up on an autopsy table.
Post by Bud
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
The facts are as I portrayed them. The cop were executing a legal search
warrant issued by a judge. Brianna Taylor`s boyfriend shot at the cops,
striking one of the in the leg. The cops returned fire, and Brionna Taylor
was struck and killed by this return fire. Facts don`t stop being facts
because they don`t fit some liberal narrative or agenda.
Post by Bud
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation,
any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and “reasonable” viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not “actual facts.”...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
<snicker> The left hates Tucker Carlson and the truth he speaks. Just
like they think they can hurt Trump by smearing him with out of context
half-truths, but only end up making him more popular they do this with
Carlson also. It doesn`t occur to them to actually show where what he says
is wrong, because they can`t.
Carlson was instrumental in getting Trump to take the virus seriously.
For that, he is to be commended....
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
little consideration to the actual pertinent
Post by Bud
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Just to be clear and correct the ambiguous meaning of the above statement,
unarmed, Arbery allegedly "attacked" someone with a shotgun who accosted
him and who is said to have acted in "self-defense".
There is nothing ambiguous about what I wrote. Arbery is dead because he
attacked someone with a gun. One of the quickest ways I can think of to
end up on an autopsy table.
Post by Bud
But as with your description of the Breanna Taylor killing the actual
details are skewed to present a bias interpretation but perhaps i
shouldn't be surprised since you may well be taking your lead from others.
The facts are as I portrayed them. The cop were executing a legal search
warrant issued by a judge. Brianna Taylor`s boyfriend shot at the cops,
striking one of the in the leg. The cops returned fire, and Brionna Taylor
was struck and killed by this return fire. Facts don`t stop being facts
because they don`t fit some liberal narrative or agenda.
Post by Bud
"...Fox persuasively argue that given Mr. Carlson???s reputation,
any reasonable viewer ???arrive with an appropriate amount of
skepticism??? about the statements he makes." - Federal Judge Mary
Kay Vyskocil
Fox TV concedes that their number one show presenter cannot be expected to
be taken seriously and ???reasonable??? viewers will be
skeptical that his claims are not ???actual facts.???...Such
is the case here on this discussion list.
<snicker> The left hates Tucker Carlson and the truth he speaks. Just
like they think they can hurt Trump by smearing him with out of context
half-truths, but only end up making him more popular they do this with
Carlson also. It doesn`t occur to them to actually show where what he says
is wrong, because they can`t.
Carlson was instrumental in getting Trump to take the virus seriously.
For that, he is to be commended....
Silly. Trump has never taken the virus seriously. No one takes Tucker
Carslson sriously. They just cite him to reinforce their paranoid
conspiracy theories.
ajohnstone
2020-09-26 03:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.

She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"

Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.

The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."

I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.

My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
John Corbett
2020-09-26 13:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Standing one's ground is not relevant to this situation. It is castle
doctrine that is relevant. All states allow the use of deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm. However, most states impose a duty to
retreat from a dangerous situation if that is a viable option and won't
put one in greater danger. There is no duty to retreat when one is in
one's home. That is castle doctrine. States with stand your ground laws
relieve a person of a duty to retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to
be.
Post by ajohnstone
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
None of this changes the fact that once fired upon, the police had every
legal right to return fire and it is not a crime if a bullet misses the
intended target and strikes someone else. The killing of Breanna Taylor
was a tragic accident, not a crime. The rioting that went on in the
aftermath is an irrational response to a just decision by the grand jury.
Bud
2020-09-27 01:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Standing one's ground is not relevant to this situation. It is castle
doctrine that is relevant. All states allow the use of deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm. However, most states impose a duty to
retreat from a dangerous situation if that is a viable option and won't
put one in greater danger. There is no duty to retreat when one is in
one's home. That is castle doctrine. States with stand your ground laws
relieve a person of a duty to retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to
be.
Post by ajohnstone
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
None of this changes the fact that once fired upon, the police had every
legal right to return fire and it is not a crime if a bullet misses the
intended target and strikes someone else.
I remember seeing a case where a police sniper shot and killed a hostage
being held by a gunman. I`ve seen cases where the cops went to the *wrong*
house than was on the warrant and ended up killing someone there. How many
innocent civilians are killed by the cops responding to a crime, or fire
trucks heading to a fire? There are lots of tragedies, but some people
want to decide that certain cases are more significant, for political
advantage.

And then there are inexplicable case like this...

"Mary Knowlton was 73 years old when she was shot to death by a police
officer demonstrating to civilians the perils of his job. The officer, Lee
Coel, was playing the “bad guy,” and Knowlton was randomly
selected to play a cop during the exercise in Punta Gorda, Fla. back in
2016. Instead of firing blanks as the retired librarian approached him,
Coel shot her with two live bullets. The shooting was captured on video,
which shows Knowlton spinning around, slumped over and grabbing her
stomach, before collapsing in front of a stunned crowd that included her
husband of 55 years."

https://time.com/5628206/police-shooting-trial-knowlton-garner/
Post by John Corbett
The killing of Breanna Taylor
was a tragic accident, not a crime.
An excellent video on the handling of the case...


Post by John Corbett
The rioting that went on in the
aftermath is an irrational response to a just decision by the grand jury.
I suppose the assumption is that if these were white people who shot at
the police they would not have returned fire.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Standing one's ground is not relevant to this situation. It is castle
doctrine that is relevant. All states allow the use of deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm. However, most states impose a duty to
retreat from a dangerous situation if that is a viable option and won't
put one in greater danger. There is no duty to retreat when one is in
one's home. That is castle doctrine. States with stand your ground laws
relieve a person of a duty to retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to
be.
Post by ajohnstone
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
None of this changes the fact that once fired upon, the police had every
You have no proof that they were fired upon. Maybe it was the other cop
coming in the back door.

Very unprofessional to shoot at random.
Post by John Corbett
legal right to return fire and it is not a crime if a bullet misses the
YOU are a crime.
Post by John Corbett
intended target and strikes someone else. The killing of Breanna Taylor
was a tragic accident, not a crime. The rioting that went on in the
Accident?
Why don't you call the JFK assassination an accident.
Your perception of truth is based on your political bias.
Post by John Corbett
aftermath is an irrational response to a just decision by the grand jury.
Bud
2020-09-27 17:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Standing one's ground is not relevant to this situation. It is castle
doctrine that is relevant. All states allow the use of deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm. However, most states impose a duty to
retreat from a dangerous situation if that is a viable option and won't
put one in greater danger. There is no duty to retreat when one is in
one's home. That is castle doctrine. States with stand your ground laws
relieve a person of a duty to retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to
be.
Post by ajohnstone
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
None of this changes the fact that once fired upon, the police had every
You have no proof that they were fired upon.
Of course there is. Kenneth Walker had 9mm, the cop was shot by 9mm. The
cops had .40 caliber bullets. Plus Walker admitted he shot the cop.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe it was the other cop
coming in the back door.
Very unprofessional to shoot at random.
Post by John Corbett
legal right to return fire and it is not a crime if a bullet misses the
YOU are a crime.
Post by John Corbett
intended target and strikes someone else. The killing of Breanna Taylor
was a tragic accident, not a crime. The rioting that went on in the
Accident?
It means done without intent.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you call the JFK assassination an accident.
Your perception of truth is based on your political bias.
Post by John Corbett
aftermath is an irrational response to a just decision by the grand jury.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-29 02:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Standing one's ground is not relevant to this situation. It is castle
doctrine that is relevant. All states allow the use of deadly force to
prevent death or great bodily harm. However, most states impose a duty to
retreat from a dangerous situation if that is a viable option and won't
put one in greater danger. There is no duty to retreat when one is in
one's home. That is castle doctrine. States with stand your ground laws
relieve a person of a duty to retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to
be.
Post by ajohnstone
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
None of this changes the fact that once fired upon, the police had every
You have no proof that they were fired upon.
Of course there is. Kenneth Walker had 9mm, the cop was shot by 9mm. The
cops had .40 caliber bullets. Plus Walker admitted he shot the cop.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe it was the other cop
The balistics is not certain, especially when the cops tamper with
evidence and doctor the reports.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
coming in the back door.
Very unprofessional to shoot at random.
Post by John Corbett
legal right to return fire and it is not a crime if a bullet misses the
YOU are a crime.
Post by John Corbett
intended target and strikes someone else. The killing of Breanna Taylor
was a tragic accident, not a crime. The rioting that went on in the
Accident?
It means done without intent.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you call the JFK assassination an accident.
Your perception of truth is based on your political bias.
Post by John Corbett
aftermath is an irrational response to a just decision by the grand jury.
Bud
2020-09-27 01:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
How does this render the search warrant illegal? I found this...

"In addition, the search warrant said Jamarcus Glover used
Taylor’s address as his home address and was observed by police
picking up a package from her apartment in January before driving to a
“known drug house.”"

But from what I`ve seen what was offered to get the search warrant was
flimsy. That doesn`t make it illegal.
Post by ajohnstone
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
shot at the police.
Where do you get 32 shots from? I see 20 most articles, some say "more
than twenty".

And I don`t have "callous disregard", I think it is a shame, very
tragic. But it didn`t occur in a vacuum.
Post by ajohnstone
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
Quote the actual argument made by Fox`s attorneys in context, I bet you
can`t. Looks like out of context spin by the MSM to me. Of course Carlson
engages in hyperbole, such as saying something is "destroying the country"
and whatnot.

I treat all the information made available to me with "appropriate
amount of skepticism", I thought that was just common sense.
ajohnstone
2020-09-27 17:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Where do you get 32 shots from? I see 20 most articles, some say "more
than twenty".

Multiple sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/breonna-taylor-decision-verdict.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/grand-jury-set-announce-decision-breonna-taylor-police/story?id=73165512
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-protests-seattle-police-officer-bike-b576850.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kentucky-grand-jury-declines-to-file-homicide-charges-in-death-of-breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/2472392a-fdb7-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor

It would be easier if we knew the statements made at the Grand Jury. Is
the lack of transcript customary for such proceedings or only apply to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky? - (genuine question)
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Quote the actual argument made by Fox`s attorneys in context, I bet
you can`t. Looks like out of context spin by the MSM to me
The actual court transcript is not available to me online but again there
are multiple sources citing the Fox News testimony

But there is this, the official judges opinion and decision...which fully
gives the legal context

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/judge-dismisses-karen-mcdougal-lawsuit-against-fox-news/

"...Fox News again moved to dismiss. The motion argues that when read in
context, Mr. Carlson’s statements “cannot reasonably be
interpreted as facts...Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr.
Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that
he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...While Mr.
Carlson used the word “extortion,” Defendant submits that
the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply
“loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language...the Court finds that
Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against
Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole ,intended to frame the debate in
the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s
soliloquy...As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to
“challenge[ political correctness and media bias.” .This
“general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer
that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he
discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and
“non-literal commentary.”...Fox persuasively argues, that
given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer
“arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about
the statements he makes...the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s
statements viewed in context are not factual representations and,
therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation."

I think quoting the actual words of the judge meets your criteria of
evidence of what was said and it is not merely spin by the media. I think
any reasonable person would say i won your challenge. And any reasonable
person would also conclude that whatever Carlson says should not be
treated with any amount of trust.
Post by Bud
I treat all the information made available to me with "appropriate
amount of skepticism"
It seems you reach a conclusion from a state of ignorance and lack of
knowledge, particularly dismissing information if it does not satisfy your
own existing opinion.
Bud
2020-09-27 20:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Where do you get 32 shots from? I see 20 most articles, some say "more
than twenty".
Multiple sources
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/breonna-taylor-decision-verdict.html
https://abcnews.go.com/US/grand-jury-set-announce-decision-breonna-taylor-police/story?id=73165512
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breonna-taylor-protests-seattle-police-officer-bike-b576850.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kentucky-grand-jury-declines-to-file-homicide-charges-in-death-of-breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/2472392a-fdb7-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
I think I see where the discrepancy arises. Mattingly fired 6 times.
Cosgrove fired 16 times. Hankison, who was outside fired ten times into
the unoccupied bedroom, through a window and a sliding glass door. He is
the officer being charged with reckless endangerment for firing without a
clear target. The other two cops had a target (they apparently couldn`t
hit).

The Kentucky Attorney General breaks down the facts here...


Post by Bud
It would be easier if we knew the statements made at the Grand Jury. Is
the lack of transcript customary for such proceedings or only apply to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky? - (genuine question)
The Kentucky Attorney General breaks down the purpose and duty of the
grand jury here...


Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Quote the actual argument made by Fox`s attorneys in context, I bet
you can`t. Looks like out of context spin by the MSM to me
The actual court transcript is not available to me online but again there
are multiple sources citing the Fox News testimony
There are multiple MSM articles quoting the judge. None directly quote
the Fox testimony in context.
Post by Bud
But there is this, the official judges opinion and decision...which fully
gives the legal context
https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/judge-dismisses-karen-mcdougal-lawsuit-against-fox-news/
"...Fox News again moved to dismiss. The motion argues that when read in
context, Mr. Carlson’s statements “cannot reasonably be
interpreted as facts...Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr.
Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that
he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...While Mr.
Carlson used the word “extortion,” Defendant submits that
the use of that word or an accusation of extortion, absent more, is simply
“loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language...the Court finds that
Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against
Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole ,intended to frame the debate in
the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s
soliloquy...As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to
“challenge[ political correctness and media bias.” .This
“general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer
that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he
discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and
“non-literal commentary.”...Fox persuasively argues, that
given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer
“arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about
the statements he makes...the Court concludes that Mr. Carlson’s
statements viewed in context are not factual representations and,
therefore, cannot give rise to a claim for defamation."
Just like I said, it is hyperbole. If Carlson says something like "If
Biden gets elected they country as we know it will cease to exist", you
can`t say later "Look, Carlson lied, the country still exists". It was
never meant to be taken literally.

It is the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. Of
course the MSM news articles are so drenched in opinion that the line had
been blurred.
Post by Bud
I think quoting the actual words of the judge meets your criteria of
evidence of what was said and it is not merely spin by the media.
It is entirely the spin of the media, they quoted it to make it appear
as if the Fox was admitting or the judge was indicating dishonesty on
Carlson`s part. Hyperbole is not lying, it is up the the viewer to discern
whether what he is saying should be taken literally or not. That is what
Fox attorneys argued, that everything Carlson said should not be taken
literally.

Do you really think that when Carlson used the word "extortion", he
meant a literal application of the definition of extortion, "the practice
of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats"? If he
was making a factual charge of extortion he would have to establish the
threats and the gain. He obviously wasn`t making a literal charge of
extortion.
Post by Bud
I think
any reasonable person would say i won your challenge. And any reasonable
person would also conclude that whatever Carlson says should not be
treated with any amount of trust.
It certainly shouldn`t be taken literally. In their desperation to harm
Carlson the MSM merely ignores the distinction.
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
I treat all the information made available to me with "appropriate
amount of skepticism"
It seems you reach a conclusion from a state of ignorance and lack of
knowledge, particularly dismissing information if it does not satisfy your
own existing opinion.
My bullshits detector works fine against the MSM`s lies,
misrepresentations and distortions. All the red flags went right up when I
saw a dozen news sources all taking the same excerpt out of context. Do
you seriously think they don`t know what "hyperbole" means? Instead they
spin it into an admission that Carlson is untrustworthy, and you fall for
it.
ajohnstone
2020-09-28 01:30:22 UTC
Permalink
You wish to agree with Fox in reducing the culpability of Carlson in
distorting facts by saying it is only him exaggerating for effect. You
suggest that by coloring his presentation with exaggeration and changing
the meaning of words is acceptable practice for someone who claims to be
presenting news events accurately.

I'm falling for nothing. Carlson is an unreliable conveyor of information.
He shows a lack of integrity. He has been accused of skewing information
to justify his arguments. His employers concede that.

"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any

reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes...the Court concludes
that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual
representations"

Some would say that the average Fox viewer would have difficulty in
discerning what reason is. They already have problems differentiating
between actual news reporting and op-eds, in my view.

You may wish to trust what Carlson says. That is up to you. But even on
Fox there are more ethical-minded journalists than him.
Bud
2020-09-28 12:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
You wish to agree with Fox in reducing the culpability of Carlson in
distorting facts by saying it is only him exaggerating for effect.
In the judge`s decision you provided the judge said "hyperbole" and
"hyperbolic language". Hyperbole means...

"exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."

Either you are looking at it for what it is or you aren`t.
Post by ajohnstone
You
suggest that by coloring his presentation with exaggeration and changing
the meaning of words is acceptable practice for someone who claims to be
presenting news events accurately.
He isn`t presenting news, he is presenting commentary and opinion.
Post by ajohnstone
I'm falling for nothing. Carlson is an unreliable conveyor of information.
He shows a lack of integrity. He has been accused of skewing information
to justify his arguments. His employers concede that.
You are doing what you accused me of, ignoring everything that goes
against your idea.

This case was specifically about Carlson accusing McDougal of extortion.
Carlson obviously did not mean literal extortion, he was engaging in
hyperbole.
Post by ajohnstone
"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any
reasonable viewer “arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of
skepticism” about the statements he makes...the Court concludes
that Mr. Carlson’s statements viewed in context are not factual
representations"
Some of his statements aren`t made to be taken literally. If you look at
those incorrectly as statements of fact you will get the mistaken
impression he is being untruthful.
Post by ajohnstone
Some would say that the average Fox viewer would have difficulty in
discerning what reason is. They already have problems differentiating
between actual news reporting and op-eds, in my view.
You are claiming Fox viewers can`t do what you are demonstrating you
can`t do.
Post by ajohnstone
You may wish to trust what Carlson says. That is up to you.
Nobody goes to Carlson to get facts, the facts of the McDougal case can
be found elsewhere. They go to Carlson for opinion and commentary.
Post by ajohnstone
But even on
Fox there are more ethical-minded journalists than him.
I don`t watch Fox. I catch some Tucker Carlson on youtube.
ajohnstone
2020-09-30 03:27:00 UTC
Permalink
It is often the left media that is accused of polarizing views on this
discussion site but what does the academic research of 1,000 transcripts
from “the two ideologically branded channels – rightwing
Fox and leftwing MSNBC” in primetime, 6pm to 10.59pm, from 1
January to 8 May this year show.

Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC.
‘Hate’ really stood out: it appeared 647 times on Fox,
compared to 118 on MSNBC. “Fox usually pairs certain words
alongside ‘hate’. The most notable was
‘they’ – as in, ‘they hate’. Fox
used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just
five times.”

The study found that when Fox News says “they hate”, it
most often means “Democrats, liberals, political elites and the
media”. Fox’s use of the word “hate”, they
said, represented a successful if “dangerous business plan when
shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and
compromise. Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like
tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow
citizens.” Republicans are likely to see Democrats as immoral or
unpatriotic, and to trust Fox News more than other outlets.

“As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker
Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify
their audience – ‘you’,
‘Christians’ and ‘us’ – as the
target of animosity … these language patterns construct a coherent
but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.”

Carlson called Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic senator from Illinois who
lost her legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq, “a deeply
silly and unimpressive person” and “a coward” who
“hates the country”.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/29/fox-news-uses-hate-five-times-more-often-than-competitors-study-finds
John Corbett
2020-09-30 14:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
It is often the left media that is accused of polarizing views on this
discussion site but what does the academic research of 1,000 transcripts
from “the two ideologically branded channels – rightwing
Fox and leftwing MSNBC” in primetime, 6pm to 10.59pm, from 1
January to 8 May this year show.
Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC.
‘Hate’ really stood out: it appeared 647 times on Fox,
compared to 118 on MSNBC. “Fox usually pairs certain words
alongside ‘hate’. The most notable was
‘they’ – as in, ‘they hate’. Fox
used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just
five times.”
The study found that when Fox News says “they hate”, it
most often means “Democrats, liberals, political elites and the
media”. Fox’s use of the word “hate”, they
said, represented a successful if “dangerous business plan when
shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and
compromise. Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like
tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow
citizens.” Republicans are likely to see Democrats as immoral or
unpatriotic, and to trust Fox News more than other outlets.
“As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker
Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify
their audience – ‘you’,
‘Christians’ and ‘us’ – as the
target of animosity … these language patterns construct a coherent
but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.”
Carlson called Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic senator from Illinois who
lost her legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq, “a deeply
silly and unimpressive person” and “a coward” who
“hates the country”.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/29/fox-news-uses-hate-five-times-more-often-than-competitors-study-finds
What a surprise. A left wing "news" organization reports that left wing
academicians found Fox was more biased than MSNBC.

The reality is that Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are all blatantly biased. All are
practicing advocacy, not journalism. Fox at least makes a token effort to
put real liberals on their panel shows to argue for the left wing side
such as Juan Williams and Donna Brazile just to name a few. Contrast that
with MSNBC's practice of hiring turncoat Republicans like Joe Scarborough,
Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and Nicole Wallace, whose role it is to
bash their former party in exchange for a nice paycheck. That makes these
people nothing more than political whores.
Bud
2020-09-30 14:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
It is often the left media that is accused of polarizing views on this
discussion site but what does the academic research of 1,000 transcripts
from “the two ideologically branded channels – rightwing
Fox and leftwing MSNBC” in primetime, 6pm to 10.59pm, from 1
January to 8 May this year show.
Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC.
‘Hate’ really stood out: it appeared 647 times on Fox,
It is a perfectly good word.
Post by ajohnstone
compared to 118 on MSNBC. “Fox usually pairs certain words
alongside ‘hate’. The most notable was
‘they’ – as in, ‘they hate’. Fox
used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just
five times.”
The study found that when Fox News says “they hate”, it
most often means “Democrats, liberals, political elites and the
media”.
These entities hate the truth. It is a fine word to use to express that
idea.
Post by ajohnstone
Fox’s use of the word “hate”, they
said, represented a successful if “dangerous business plan when
shared crises demand Americans’ empathy, negotiation and
compromise.
It is the left that turns to violence when it doesn`t get it`s way.
Post by ajohnstone
Fox’s talk of hate undermines democratic values like
tolerance and reduces Americans’ trust of their fellow
citizens.”
The right is much more tolerant than the left of other people`s ideas or
viewpoints.
Post by ajohnstone
Republicans are likely to see Democrats as immoral or
unpatriotic,
Not all, just the extreme leftist wing of the Democratic party.
Post by ajohnstone
and to trust Fox News more than other outlets.
They are the most trustworthy.
Post by ajohnstone
“As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker
Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify
their audience – ‘you’,
‘Christians’ and ‘us’ – as the
target of animosity … these language patterns construct a coherent
but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.”
"potentially dangerous" narratives as opposed to the actually dangerous
false narratives of the left. They see riots as peaceful events.
Post by ajohnstone
Carlson called Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic senator from Illinois who
lost her legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq, “a deeply
silly and unimpressive person” and “a coward” who
“hates the country”.
Once you get involved in politics you can be attacked regardless of your
history or background.
Post by ajohnstone
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/29/fox-news-uses-hate-five-times-more-often-than-competitors-study-finds
John Corbett
2020-09-28 01:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
I think I see where the discrepancy arises. Mattingly fired 6 times.
Cosgrove fired 16 times. Hankison, who was outside fired ten times into
the unoccupied bedroom, through a window and a sliding glass door. He is
the officer being charged with reckless endangerment for firing without a
clear target. The other two cops had a target (they apparently couldn`t
hit).
Kind of reminds me of the scene from Pulp Fiction where the guy bursts out
of the bathroom and empties his .357 Magnum in the direction of Samuel L.
Jackson and John Travolta. They look at each other, look at the bullet
holes in the wall behind them, realize neither had been hit and then turn
and blow the guy away.
MR. X
2020-09-28 12:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
I think I see where the discrepancy arises. Mattingly fired 6 times.
Cosgrove fired 16 times. Hankison, who was outside fired ten times into
the unoccupied bedroom, through a window and a sliding glass door. He is
the officer being charged with reckless endangerment for firing without a
clear target. The other two cops had a target (they apparently couldn`t
hit).
Kind of reminds me of the scene from Pulp Fiction where the guy bursts out
of the bathroom and empties his .357 Magnum in the direction of Samuel L.
Jackson and John Travolta. They look at each other, look at the bullet
holes in the wall behind them, realize neither had been hit and then turn
and blow the guy away.
The guy who burst out of the bathroom in Pulp Fiction was Alexis Arquette.
He was HIV positive during the film and died in 2016.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
The facts are as I portrayed them.
Perhaps the choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug
dealer.
WHO? Say her name. Do you mean IIvanka Trump?
Post by ajohnstone
She was in bed with Kenneth Walker, someone that had no criminal
Prove that she was in bed with anyone when she was shot.
Her boyfriend was at the front door trying to keep a burglar from
getting in.
Post by ajohnstone
background , who was in the legal possession of a firearm and who
responded legally under state law of "standing ones ground"
Her relationship with Glover had been over for for two years.
Of course. It was a defective warrant. That has never stopped the cops
before.
Post by ajohnstone
The search warrant was illegal as it was based on the false evidence. The
"no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary
M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men
used the apartment to receive packages and it was changed to "knock and
announce." The U.S. postal inspector publicly announced that the
collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal
office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to
Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they
concluded, "There's no packages of interest going there."
Ok. maybe her olf bofrind used the address for drug drops, but why
should SHE know anything about that? Maybe the cops suspected drugs had
been dropped off there. But why are you trying to victimize HER?
You just have to kill SOMEBODDY, ANYBODY, to prove that you are a cop?
Post by ajohnstone
I find it very telling your callous indifference to the killing of an
innocent working person or that the police fired a total of 32 shots, six
that hit an innocent bystander and none which hit the person who fired a
Who was an innoent Bystander? Name her.
How about if the hit the other cop? Well, at least they would get a kill
and they could blame the victims.
Post by ajohnstone
shot at the police.
My comment on Tucker Carlson's reliability for telling the truth did not
come from any leftist but from the legal testimony of his own employers.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 23:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.
Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
Did the Confederacy protest peacefully?
John Corbett
2020-09-26 03:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.
Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
Did the Confederacy protest peacefully?
The Confederacy was made up of Democrats who refused to accept a duly
elected Republican President. Pretty much like modern Democrats.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 01:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.
Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
Did the Confederacy protest peacefully?
The Confederacy was made up of Democrats who refused to accept a duly
elected Republican President. Pretty much like modern Democrats.
I see you never studied History in kindergarten. Ask .John for help.
Back then the Democrats in the South were like the Republicans now.
Racists.
Bud
2020-09-26 03:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.
Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
Did the Confederacy protest peacefully?
Are we at war? If so, why are you crying when these rioters get shot and
run over?
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-27 17:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
.John
So what did MLK actually say
"I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air.
Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be
condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a
riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has
failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor
has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the
promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to
hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about
tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity.
And so in a real sense our nation???s summers of riots are caused by
our nation???s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones
justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence
and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the
absolute guarantors of riot prevention."
"It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It
would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel
that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions
to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of
the unheard."
Fifty years ago that might be true, but not today. The riots of today
are basically demands that cops get lynched without due process. Or if due
process is applied, the angry mobs get to dictate what this "justice"
should look like.
Post by ajohnstone
And as an outsider looking in, it is clear to me that many white Americans
simply deny there is a race problem
Not true in the least. You can`t escape it, it is constantly brought to
your attention. And the result is to make race relation worse, not better.
I`ll give you a hint, white people who mind their own business, work hard
and pay their taxes don`t want to be constantly lectured to by idiots like
they are the bad guys, they just want to be left alone.
Post by ajohnstone
and find it a lot easier to blame the
victim.
"blame the victim" is just a euphemism for ignoring all the
circumstances that led to the outcome. All those inconvenient facts that
harm the contrived leftist narrative are not to be considered in figuring
out what happened and why.
Take the latest unrest over the Brianna Taylor killing. Perhaps the
choices she made led her to be sleeping with an armed drug dealer. Perhaps
his choice to fire at the police serving a search warrant somehow led to
her being shot and killed by police. Perhaps if her boyfriend didn`t shoot
at police she would be alive today. But quite right, all focus needs to be
on cop pulling the trigger, this is all we need to know.
Post by ajohnstone
I noticed this from my first experience on this discussion list in
relation to Ahmaud Arbery.
I noticed in that case that all the leftists were so fixated on the
races involved that they gave little consideration to the actual pertinent
facts, like Arbery attacking someone with a gun.
Post by ajohnstone
"To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more
effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the
society but not wantonly destructive, moreover, it is more difficult for
Government to quell it by superior force."
I support MLK idea that civil disobedience and a general strike is the
better option. But i suspect that when the reaction is to a peaceful
protest as kneeling down when the national anthem is played at a sporting
event is so irrational, non-violence would be subjected to the violence of
others.
People can protest all they like peacefully here. Certain people aren`t
happy with that.
Did the Confederacy protest peacefully?
Are we at war? If so, why are you crying when these rioters get shot and
run over?
We WERE at war. It was called the Civil War.
You skipped over the point about protesting.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 00:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
You need to face the fact -- and I know you don't want to -- that most
of the bad things that happen to black people are the result of
dysfunction in the black community.
Does "systemic racism" cause blacks, 13% of the population, to commit
nearly half of all murders?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
Does "systemic racism" cause 72% of black children to be born out of
wedlock?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Out_of-Wedlock.pdf
How come when there really was "systemic racism" many fewer black kids
were born out of wedlock?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Illegitimate_Early.pdf
Are you even aware of the consequences of this?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/posc2201/Welfare/Illegitimacy_effects.pdf
Post by ajohnstone
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
You don't address inequality by rioting and looting. That merely
reinforced inequality.
So your idea is that oppresssed people have no right to fight for their
lives. Like the Jews under Hitler who just meekly got onto the cattlecars
taking them to the concentration camps. They should just stay asleep in
bed and be shot to death. I suspect you would not say such things if you
were in their place.
Post by John McAdams
Martin Luther King knew that, but modern leftists don't.
OF COURSE we do. And we know who is playing the role of Hitler.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Corbett
2020-09-24 01:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
It is not systematic. It was when the US had Jim Crow laws. Those were
made illegal over 50 years ago. Racism exists in the hearts and minds of
individuals and there are racists among all races. There is no systematic
racism.
Post by ajohnstone
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
I don't know how the BBC was reporting it but that in no way describes how
it was being covered by US network news.

Once again you mix inequality with racism. Inequality is inherent in the
human existence. It is not indicative of racism. There will always be
those who have more than others and it is not due to racism. Equal rights
and equal protection under the law are ideals that we should strive for
but equality in wealth distribution is not. The former is codified while
the latter is not nor should it be.
donald willis
2020-09-24 16:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
It is not systematic. It was when the US had Jim Crow laws. Those were
made illegal over 50 years ago.
Has redlining been made illegal?

Racism exists in the hearts and minds of
Post by John Corbett
individuals and there are racists among all races. There is no systematic
racism.
Post by ajohnstone
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
I don't know how the BBC was reporting it but that in no way describes how
it was being covered by US network news.
Once again you mix inequality with racism. Inequality is inherent in the
human existence. It is not indicative of racism. There will always be
those who have more than others and it is not due to racism. Equal rights
and equal protection under the law are ideals that we should strive for
but equality in wealth distribution is not. The former is codified while
the latter is not nor should it be.
John Corbett
2020-09-24 22:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by John Corbett
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
It is not systematic. It was when the US had Jim Crow laws. Those were
made illegal over 50 years ago.
Has redlining been made illegal?
Redlining is a very broad term so I'm not sure what you mean by it. If you
mean what I think it means, redlining is simply businesses making business
decisions. That is not racist even if it has an adverse effect on
minorities. If an inner city Ma & Pa store gets looted or burned and the
owners of that business choose to relocate to a suburb because their
insurance premiums would be prohibitive if they chose to stay, is that
redlining? When insurance companies raise premiums in localities which
aren't allowing their police to move forcefully against rioters and
looters, is that redlining? That is not racism. It is assessing risk and
setting premiums accordingly, something insurance companies are very good
at because they have to be good at it. If there is a high risk of having
to pay out a claim, the premiums will be high also. It doesn't matter what
the reason the risk is high.
Bud
2020-09-24 22:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
Perhaps it is your denial of QAnon ideas that is delusional.
Post by ajohnstone
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
Typical liberal nonsense, a bunch of begged assertions and assumptions
that really show nothing pertaining to today`s America.

I can actually show demonstrable instances of black privilege, this
article doesn`t give one tangible example of white privilege. Blacks who
come from Africa (who are much blacker than American blacks) seem to have
no problem finding jobs. Liberals cripple blacks by creating a victimhood
narrative that causes many blacks not to try, because the deck is stacked
against them. Also there are blacks who try to keep other blacks from
succeeding, saying those that try are "acting white", because success
harms the victimhood myth.

And not everybody`s ancestors came over in the Mayflower. I have a good
portion of Irish in me (I think, I`m a quite a mongrel), these people came
over in 1845 (potato famine) and went straight down into the mines, and
shortly to be used as fodder in the Civil War that freed the slaves. There
were an estimated 850,000 people killed in that conflict, an amazing
number considering how many people were in the country at the time, and
the vast majority of these were white people. White people paid our debt
for slavery with lakes of blood.

And the Italians and Jews came over and went straight in the ghettos on
big cities. These white people didn`t share in the historical legacy of
slavery, yet the onus of slavery is still applied to them unfairly.


Let me address some excerpts from this article...

"In the U.S. this includes the role that the enslavement of Black people
played in creating an unjust wealth for white people, their businesses,
and their families."

What percentage of white people owned slaves? One percent, less?

The institution of slavery could only hurt poor whites, who had to
compete with the free labor slavery produced.

"It also includes the way white people exploited labor throughout the
European colonies prior to the founding of the United States."

Blacks in Africa profited from the slave trade. Slavers in the Middle
East profited from the slave trade. Every race and culture was up to their
ass in the slave trade at the time.

I won`t bother picking apart most of it, suffice it to say that almost
every line is a begged argument. Also used heavily is the flawed approach
of looking at outcomes, and claiming any discrepancy in outcomes is the
result of racism. It is a lazy way of arguing, assuming what it doesn`t
show. You see this a lot in racial politics, including police shootings.
If a white cop shoots a black suspect, it was a racially motivated
shooting, regardless of the circumstances.
Post by ajohnstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
And I`ve heard all this hot air about white privilege before. Like
bigfoot it can be claimed but not shown.
Post by ajohnstone
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
John Corbett
2020-09-25 01:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
Perhaps it is your denial of QAnon ideas that is delusional.
Post by ajohnstone
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
Typical liberal nonsense, a bunch of begged assertions and assumptions
that really show nothing pertaining to today`s America.
I can actually show demonstrable instances of black privilege, this
article doesn`t give one tangible example of white privilege. Blacks who
come from Africa (who are much blacker than American blacks) seem to have
no problem finding jobs. Liberals cripple blacks by creating a victimhood
narrative that causes many blacks not to try, because the deck is stacked
against them. Also there are blacks who try to keep other blacks from
succeeding, saying those that try are "acting white", because success
harms the victimhood myth.
And not everybody`s ancestors came over in the Mayflower. I have a good
portion of Irish in me (I think, I`m a quite a mongrel), these people came
over in 1845 (potato famine) and went straight down into the mines, and
shortly to be used as fodder in the Civil War that freed the slaves.
I'm a mongrel too with an Irish surname. My favorite line from one of my
favorite movies, Blazing Saddles:

"Alright. We'll take the n*****s and the chinks, but we don't want the
Irish.".

That movie is so politically incorrect that even Mel Brooks has said there
is no way they could make it today. Fortunately, we have it preserved.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 23:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
Perhaps it is your denial of QAnon ideas that is delusional.
Post by ajohnstone
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
Typical liberal nonsense, a bunch of begged assertions and assumptions
that really show nothing pertaining to today`s America.
I can actually show demonstrable instances of black privilege, this
article doesn`t give one tangible example of white privilege. Blacks who
come from Africa (who are much blacker than American blacks) seem to have
no problem finding jobs. Liberals cripple blacks by creating a victimhood
narrative that causes many blacks not to try, because the deck is stacked
against them. Also there are blacks who try to keep other blacks from
succeeding, saying those that try are "acting white", because success
harms the victimhood myth.
And not everybody`s ancestors came over in the Mayflower. I have a good
portion of Irish in me (I think, I`m a quite a mongrel), these people came
over in 1845 (potato famine) and went straight down into the mines, and
shortly to be used as fodder in the Civil War that freed the slaves.
I'm a mongrel too with an Irish surname. My favorite line from one of my
"Alright. We'll take the n*****s and the chinks, but we don't want the
Irish.".
That movie is so politically incorrect that even Mel Brooks has said there
is no way they could make it today. Fortunately, we have it preserved.
Well, if you remember, I was perhaps the only fan of Sci-fi who
complained about Black Panther.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 23:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
Post by Bud
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
Or is it the denial of such that is delusional?
Perhaps it is your denial of QAnon ideas that is delusional.
Post by ajohnstone
https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565
Typical liberal nonsense, a bunch of begged assertions and assumptions
that really show nothing pertaining to today`s America.
I can actually show demonstrable instances of black privilege, this
article doesn`t give one tangible example of white privilege. Blacks who
come from Africa (who are much blacker than American blacks) seem to have
no problem finding jobs. Liberals cripple blacks by creating a victimhood
narrative that causes many blacks not to try, because the deck is stacked
against them. Also there are blacks who try to keep other blacks from
succeeding, saying those that try are "acting white", because success
harms the victimhood myth.
And not everybody`s ancestors came over in the Mayflower. I have a good
Right. My ancestors came over on the next ship, the Fortune.
Post by Bud
portion of Irish in me (I think, I`m a quite a mongrel), these people came
over in 1845 (potato famine) and went straight down into the mines, and
shortly to be used as fodder in the Civil War that freed the slaves. There
were an estimated 850,000 people killed in that conflict, an amazing
number considering how many people were in the country at the time, and
the vast majority of these were white people. White people paid our debt
for slavery with lakes of blood.
And the Italians and Jews came over and went straight in the ghettos on
big cities. These white people didn`t share in the historical legacy of
slavery, yet the onus of slavery is still applied to them unfairly.
Let me address some excerpts from this article...
"In the U.S. this includes the role that the enslavement of Black people
played in creating an unjust wealth for white people, their businesses,
and their families."
What percentage of white people owned slaves? One percent, less?
The institution of slavery could only hurt poor whites, who had to
compete with the free labor slavery produced.
Well, it also depended on what the econoy was based on. Up North it was
farming and industry. Down South it was based on cotton and tobacco.
You don't need a college degree to pick cotton.
Post by Bud
"It also includes the way white people exploited labor throughout the
European colonies prior to the founding of the United States."
Blacks in Africa profited from the slave trade. Slavers in the Middle
East profited from the slave trade. Every race and culture was up to their
ass in the slave trade at the time.
I won`t bother picking apart most of it, suffice it to say that almost
every line is a begged argument. Also used heavily is the flawed approach
of looking at outcomes, and claiming any discrepancy in outcomes is the
result of racism. It is a lazy way of arguing, assuming what it doesn`t
show. You see this a lot in racial politics, including police shootings.
If a white cop shoots a black suspect, it was a racially motivated
shooting, regardless of the circumstances.
Post by ajohnstone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
No doubt there will be those who will assert...ahhh, that was all in the
past...you are raking up old history...it's all different now...We are all
treated equal ...There is no such thing as white supremacy...
Yeah, i've heard it all before.
And I`ve heard all this hot air about white privilege before. Like
bigfoot it can be claimed but not shown.
What do you have against Bigfoot? That's speciesism.
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
I was a youth when the 1960s Civil Rights riots were taking place and i
still remember the news outlets blaming it all on the weather, asking the
weather bureau of the likelihood of a riot because of the temperature in
the cities....it was easier to say it was because of a hot Summer than
admit inequality existed in the land of the free.
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-23 23:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics
A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?
Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
No, it's a public health crisis.
Post by Bud
Isn`t the overreaction to police shooting blacks merely paranoid
delusion when you consider what a tiny threat it actually is to black
people? Isn`t this overblown violent reaction a threat to democracy?
No, silly. Why don't you try trading places? You think it's fun to be
shot and killed just because of the color of your skin?
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
WWG1WGA?
https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
Bud
2020-09-24 01:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics
A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?
Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
No, it's a public health crisis.
Can you catch it off toilet seats?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Isn`t the overreaction to police shooting blacks merely paranoid
delusion when you consider what a tiny threat it actually is to black
people? Isn`t this overblown violent reaction a threat to democracy?
No, silly. Why don't you try trading places?
Seems a lot of white people lie about being black to enjoy the
advantages blacks have...






Post by Anthony Marsh
You think it's fun to be
shot and killed just because of the color of your skin?
You seem to think it is fun to pretend this happens.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
WWG1WGA?
https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
Anthony Marsh
2020-09-25 00:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics
A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?
Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.
What about "systematic racism", isn`t that just a conspiracy theory?
No, it's a public health crisis.
Can you catch it off toilet seats?
Yes, whch is why some stores don't let the cutomers use the toilet or
they have sanitizing wipes.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Isn`t the overreaction to police shooting blacks merely paranoid
delusion when you consider what a tiny threat it actually is to black
people? Isn`t this overblown violent reaction a threat to democracy?
No, silly. Why don't you try trading places?
Seems a lot of white people lie about being black to enjoy the
advantages blacks have...
No, silly. And some people aren't sure what they are.
What advantages do blacks have? Being killed in their sleep by white
racist cops?
Post by Bud
http://youtu.be/7_2eRKIt6ik
http://youtu.be/iwMzZtU5H7I
http://youtu.be/i8aIT0SlIM8
Post by Anthony Marsh
You think it's fun to be
shot and killed just because of the color of your skin?
You seem to think it is fun to pretend this happens.
I KNOW it happens.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by ajohnstone
WWG1WGA?
https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
Anthony Marsh
2020-10-06 03:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
A clever marketing strategy for tee-shirts and internet click-bait or is
it symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in politics
A new cult according to some commentators. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard
invented new religions is QAnon another where revelation is available only
to true believers?
Many on this forum are only too aware of how pervasive and powerful a
conspiracy theory can be when it take holds of people's common-sense.
Surely, this website should be in the forefront of exposing conspiracy
theories as a threat to democracy.
WWG1WGA?
https://exopolitics.org/bombshell-qanon-posts-link-clintons-cia-to-jfk-jr-plane-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6954159/qanon-conspiracy-theory-trump-secret-wars-jfk-assassination/
OH, really> So you are admiting that everyone agrees with me.
THAT'S VERY reassuring.
Loading...