NFT- MLB has moved All Star Game out of Atlanta

[Ed Vette]

(null)
I wouldn

[Bob In PA]

Bob,

Have I posted propaganda from BLM or Antifa?  Your evasiveness is telling (or is it damning).   In my opinion, the fact that the right constantly needs to employ dishonest tactics to support their positions speaks to the fundamental flaws of their positions.  Good positions don't need trickery or sleight of hand to garner support

Rich: I have not posted any propaganda from any source at any time.  There is no dishonesty involved. It's a question of whose version of the facts you accept.  You have no problem accepting AS FACTS the Democrat analysis of the Georgia voter bill, not all of which is correct, but rather question the facts, correctness and honesty of groups who lean toward the Republican analysis of the bill.  My note mentioning BLM and Antifa was intended only to make a point, not because of anything you posted.  Bob

[Bob In PA]

(null)
I wouldn

[Bob In PA]

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/26/conservative-clergy-respond-black-lives-matter-alters-controversial-manifest-color

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I have not posted any propaganda from any source at any time.  There is no dishonesty involved. It's a question of whose version of the facts you accept.  You have no problem accepting AS FACTS the Democrat analysis of the Georgia voter bill, not all of which is correct, but rather question the facts, correctness and honesty of groups who lean toward the Republican analysis of the bill.  My note mentioning BLM and Antifa was intended only to make a point, not because of anything you posted.  Bob

Who funds the Conservative Clergy of Color?

How many members does it have?

What qualifies them as subject matter experts?

How do we know they are telling the truth?

[Bob In PA]

Rather than just reading and considering the links I posted, you persist in an attempt to impugn the character and motives of people who are merely expressing a political opinion.

Who funds the Conservative Clergy of Color?
Donors who believe ALL political views, peacefully expressed, deserve to be heard (the same donors who've grown tired of "cancel culture" which is a modern-day equivalent of old-fashioned book-burning).
How many members does it have?
At least enough to set up a website and accept donations (query: how many members does a group need before we should "allow" their political viewpoints to be heard?).
What qualifies them as subject matter experts?
The only expertise required to state a political view is citizenship (the same citizenship that qualifies a person to vote). If there are factual errors due to lack of knowledge, dissenters will and should expose them.
How do we know they are telling the truth?
The same way we know if any other person is telling the truth.

And now for some questions of my own:

Why do you seek to denigrate this group by questioning its funding, size, background, expertise, honesty and sincerity? 
It couldn't be because you are unable to respond to their views in a reasoned manner, could it?
Don't kill the messengers.  What about THE MESSAGE?

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rather than just reading and considering the links I posted, you persist in an attempt to impugn the character and motives of people who are merely expressing a political opinion.

Who funds the Conservative Clergy of Color?
Donors who believe ALL political views, peacefully expressed, deserve to be heard (the same donors who've grown tired of "cancel culture" which is a modern-day equivalent of old-fashioned book-burning).
How many members does it have?
At least enough to set up a website and accept donations (query: how many members does a group need before we should "allow" their political viewpoints to be heard?).
What qualifies them as subject matter experts?
The only expertise required to state a political view is citizenship (the same citizenship that qualifies a person to vote). If there are factual errors due to lack of knowledge, dissenters will and should expose them.
How do we know they are telling the truth?
The same way we know if any other person is telling the truth.

And now for some questions of my own:

Why do you seek to denigrate this group by questioning its funding, size, background, expertise, honesty and sincerity? 
It couldn't be because you are unable to respond to their views in a reasoned manner, could it?
Don't kill the messengers.  What about THE MESSAGE?

Bob

People here are more than capable of expressing and forming their own opinions.  You haven't answered what would be standard questions of any "expert witness" in a courtroom.   Yet if I challenge what made that article so important and worthy of being posted on this discussion you come up empty and accuse me of impugning the character of people who by my research are nothing more than right-wing propagandists whose funding is secret and expertise, qualifications, or even numbers are unknown. 

I appreciate the subtext of this classic right-wing/Republican tactic.    It's hauled out every time Republicans harm African Americans.   They use it when they rob them of their right to vote.  They use it when they support police officers who murder unarmed African Americans.     The content, and it's a flawed one at best, is that if they can find an African American for whatever reason agrees with them, then that is all the proof they need to say they are not racist or uncaring for the plight of minorities. 

As I said, the right and Republicans have unpopular and badly flawed opinions many of them being outright unAmerican (like robbing people of their right to vote or trying to overthrow an election and by extension our government).     The problem is the GOP has gone so extreme in their views and is so unpopular that the only way to stay in power it to keep large portions of the population from voting and rigging the system so that even when the people speak the GOP ignores them and seizes power anyway.   

This is a rather unique happening in our nation's history and it is no doubt aided by the right-wing propaganda apparatus that former Republican House Speaker John Banner spoke of.   In the past when a political party strayed and became unpopular they would do soul searching and adjust their policies to be more in line with what Americans want.   Now we are witnessing a party attempting to destroy our institutions of democracy so that they can continue to rule even then it's against everything the American people want.

If you think I am being hyperbolic (and I wish to God I was) look forward to the near-universal GOP opposition to bills in Congress that are very popular with the American people.  From voting rights to stimulus, to infrastructure and gun safety measures, the American people all want that, but the GOP are 100% opposed.    So much for a government for the people, by the people, and of the people.

[katkavage]

kat: That is one way to look at it.  Another is to ask why the Democrats (in the last election) changed the laws (or rules and regulations, etc.) in PA, MI, WI, etc., but didn't do so in NY, CA, IL, etc. 

There are two sides to every political coin. I don't mind (AT ALL) a person who sees both sides and THEN makes his or her choice. 

That is a person's right as an American citizen, so I respect whatever choice they make after considering the arguments of the competing parties.

Bob

All that is true in terms of our choices. But the easier it is to get more people to vote is always a very good thing for democracy. Making it harder for whatever clerical reason is not good for democracy.

[Bob In PA]

People here are more than capable of expressing and forming their own opinions.

Rich: See the following link to yet another story dissenting from what IMO is the majority viewpoint on this site concerning the GA election law:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/04/16/why_we_black_leaders_support_voter_id_laws_145598.html

Below is an explanation of why I persist in keeping this thread alive:  I believe it is necessary to constantly monitor both sides of every political issue (especially in national politics), because both sides exaggerate, both sides focus on only the most extreme viewpoints of the other side, and both sides can IMO rightly be called "liars" (or at least extremely deceptive.... you have to parse every last word out of the mouths of these people, on both sides, to discern the meaning and value, if any, of their public statements). 

For this reason, it is a great waste of time to listen to opinion shows of the type presented on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, OAN, and the like.  But more insidious than the clearly biased, single-minded, and ratings-focused programs are the supposedly "regular" news shows, not only on the aforementioned networks, but on outlets we used to depend on (before you were born LOL) for a fair and accurate representation of the events of the day and a "centralized" evaluation of the views of the majority of Americans.  These days, news directors at even the least nonsensical TV networks, newspapers and Internet sites - all of them - daily make choices concerning which stories to emphasize, which stories to bury and which to ignore. 

The atmosphere these days makes it very difficult for people who want to make up their own minds about issues after hearing voices from both sides present their views.
Where you live, it is necessary to "go the extra mile" to read, hear, or see the side of the story I hear every day.
And where I live, it is necessary to "go the extra mile" to hear, hear, or see the side of the story that you hear every day.
And so I persist.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: See the following link to yet another story dissenting from what IMO is the majority viewpoint on this site concerning the GA election law:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/04/16/why_we_black_leaders_support_voter_id_laws_145598.html

Below is an explanation of why I persist in keeping this thread alive:  I believe it is necessary to constantly monitor both sides of every political issue (especially in national politics), because both sides exaggerate, both sides focus on only the most extreme viewpoints of the other side, and both sides can IMO rightly be called "liars" (or at least extremely deceptive.... you have to parse every last word out of the mouths of these people, on both sides, to discern the meaning and value, if any, of their public statements). 

For this reason, it is a great waste of time to listen to opinion shows of the type presented on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, OAN, and the like.  But more insidious than the clearly biased, single-minded, and ratings-focused programs are the supposedly "regular" news shows, not only on the aforementioned networks, but on outlets we used to depend on (before you were born LOL) for a fair and accurate representation of the events of the day and a "centralized" evaluation of the views of the majority of Americans.  These days, news directors at even the least nonsensical TV networks, newspapers and Internet sites - all of them - daily make choices concerning which stories to emphasize, which stories to bury and which to ignore. 

The atmosphere these days makes it very difficult for people who want to make up their own minds about issues after hearing voices from both sides present their views.
Where you live, it is necessary to "go the extra mile" to read, hear, or see the side of the story I hear every day.
And where I live, it is necessary to "go the extra mile" to hear, hear, or see the side of the story that you hear every day.
And so I persist.

Bob

Bob,

You just posting more false right-wing propaganda.   The article quotes Rasmussen Reports who openly advocated the LIE that the election was stolen and pushed for a coup that would have destroyed our nation.  Any article that uses information gained from that anti-American organization is beyond tainted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election

[Bob In PA]

Bob,

You just posting more false right-wing propaganda.   The article quotes Rasmussen Reports who openly advocated the LIE that the election was stolen and pushed for a coup that would have destroyed our nation.  Any article that uses information gained from that anti-American organization is beyond tainted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/531830-rasmussen-quotes-stalin-in-discussing-us-election

Rich: IMO, use of Democrat talking-point boilerplate (such as "right-wing propaganda") minimizes your credibility, turns people off, and fails to advance the discussion.

And exaggeration in a post accusing others of advancing propaganda is bad timing, to say the least (tweeting a quote is not advocacy; correctly noting one of Pence's options is not "pushing for a coup").

Hyperbole is common among politicians, but hardly effective in our forum (see this excellent article - I promise you will like it -->)  https://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2016/12/avoid-hyperbole.html

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: IMO, use of Democrat talking-point boilerplate (such as "right-wing propaganda") minimizes your credibility, turns people off, and fails to advance the discussion.

And exaggeration in a post accusing others of advancing propaganda is bad timing, to say the least (tweeting a quote is not advocacy; correctly noting one of Pence's options is not "pushing for a coup").

Hyperbole is common among politicians, but hardly effective in our forum (see this excellent article - I promise you will like it -->)  https://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2016/12/avoid-hyperbole.html

Bob

Bob,

You literally pushed false propaganda from Rasmussen Reports which while touting themselves as a "non-partisan polling company" literally pushed the proven lie that the election was stolen and advocated overthrowing our government.

To tell me that I am the one with the credibility problem demonstrates just how badly that right-wing propaganda has clouded the thinking and judgment of otherwise sensible and intelligent people

As far as reaching the people who have come under the influence of this dangerous propaganda, it's a long and challenging proposition and requires more than some interactions on a message board.   


A perfect example.   Those under the right-wing propaganda sway-   "THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!!!"   

Attorney General Bill Barr who had a long history of bending the law to serve the President he supported in ways the US Attorney General never should (he is the attorney of the American people, not the President) literally announces that the election was not stolen.   

The same propaganda affected people-   "Bill Barr is from the deep state!!!!  He is lying because he always hated Donald Trump!!!!!"


That sort of position isn't going to be swayed by facts and reason.   

Sadly as long as the right-wing propaganda machine continues to exist and prosper our nation and our democracy is in mortal peril.   Efforts like the ones in Georgia to rob minorities and the poor of their right to vote will spread throughout the nation justified by the lies about stolen elections and how people need to feel assured that the election wasn't stolen (even though those same people have shown themselves immune to facts).   

These are sad and dangerous times we live in and frankly I am not all that optimistic for our nation's future.

[Bob In PA]

Rich: You're repeating an argument you've already made.  That doesn't bother me.  What bothers me is that you misapprehend my purpose.

I'm not trying to CONVINCE you or anyone else here to change any political view or position.  In other words, I'm not "pushing" anything.

My point is very simple... voters should beware the tactics employed by BOTH sides in attempting to persuade the public (by hook or BY CROOK) to accept their side of the argument.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: You're repeating an argument you've already made.  That doesn't bother me.  What bothers me is that you misapprehend my purpose.

I'm not trying to CONVINCE you or anyone else here to change any political view or position.  In other words, I'm not "pushing" anything.

My point is very simple... voters should beware the tactics employed by BOTH sides in attempting to persuade the public (by hook or BY CROOK) to accept their side of the argument.

Bob

Bob,

Both sides are not trying to change the election laws to make it harder to vote.  So I don't see how you could claim this is an instance of "both sides"

[tomeee]

Are political discussions now allowed?

Are they only allowed for when the mod's go back and forth endlessly?

Take it to PM after 17 pages most people with half a brain know your positions.