"By our words or our silence, and by our action or our inaction, we get to influence the choices that people in our circles choose to make. The legacies we leave could easily be marked by either the fist-grip or pinky-hold we have on reality."
Everyday I watch videos and read articles online that liberally quote from all the known leftist sources. I don't watch TV; I read and watch everything online because it's more efficient (no commercials to sit through) and gives me far more sources than TV. And I've come to learn which sources are trustworthy. Online conservative news sources (not Fox News) tend to be very reactive to leftist news and so their output is full of quotes, videos, and transcripts directly from leftist sources. I'm glad to hear that you watched Fox News the other day. That's a start. Fox News, however, is a huge corporation and their owners and managers are well-documented lefties and Trump haters. They are working very hard to keep Trump off the Republlican ballot. What they did to Tucker Carlson proves that they are not a conservative news source. So when you say that you "watched Fox News the other day", you're still not getting much trusted information that would help you truly understand the conservative POV. Newsmax is a better source than Fox News for conservative output. But, why stop there? Wouldn't you want to get as many varied sources of news as possible to form your own opinion? Especially when the MSM censors so many important stories (e.g., the Hunter Biden laptop, Big Tech censorship, the Biden family corruption, the 40,000+ unseen January 6 videos, the origin of COVID-19 virus, etc.)? And yes, it's hard work sorting out the kernals of truth from all the speculation and fear-mongering. But in the final analysis, Mark, it's completely up to you as to how much time and energy you want to spend trying to understand what's going on around us. If you want me to stop sharing news articles with you (today was the first one I've sent to you in several years), I will gladly respect your wishes and cease doing so. I value our friendship more than politics.
I will respectfully default to your last sentence.
There are a hundred different ulterior motives behind different purveyors of so-called truth. I think people can always find or drum up dirt on high profile people but character shines through for all of us to see in those same people. What I see and hear coming from a person's mouth and their actions supersede what people say about them. If they emanate compassion, love, honesty, and kindness through what I see and hear, then I assume they're basically decent folk - that's all we can hope for when a politician is juggling hundreds of conflicts of interests.
On the other hand, when a person is documented in hundreds of recordings or videos emanating greed, dishonesty, vitriol and narcissism, I think they're basically the antithesis of who I admire or support. No intelligent word-spinners are going to change what I've witnessed countless times with the eyes and ears that God gave me.
You get the closing remark, though it has been interesting jousting with you. Take care - Mark
Nope, I watched Fox news the other day to see what they had to say about Trump's newest indictment and Newsmax about theirs. Per usual, there's a kernel of truth and a whole lot of conspiracy theories and fear -mongering thrown in for good measure. When was the last time that you watched MSNBC, some left leaning profit driven station or NPR about their coverage of anything?
Mark: As per your request in your post, I will try to answer your two questions. Your assertions in your questions are misinformed. Bill Barr is not loyal to Trump, as proven by his statements and actions before and after the 2020 election. Barr was recommended for AG by George W. Bush and Trump naively followed the recommendation because he didn't know the DC players well at the start of his first term. Bush (more of a globalist) and Trump (more of a nationalist) have conflicting views on the role of government and so Bush's recommendation of an AG for Trump was guaranteed to be troublesome. "Dozens of judges" never heard Trump's arguments about the 2020 election because they decided that Trump didn't have any legal standing; most of the cases were never heard for procedural issues, not because of the evidence they contained. And why didn't Trump have standing? Please read the following article carefully and completely to learn why Trump didn't have standing on his legal actions regarding the 2020 election. The article details the parliamentary procedures that happened in Congress on January 6 and 7, 2021, a topic that has not been explained anywhere else that I am aware of. What happened inside the Capital building is just as important as what happened outside the Capital building. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/08/06/reminder-the-parliamentary-motive-behind-the-j6-fedsurrection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reminder-the-parliamentary-motive-behind-the-j6-fedsurrection&lctg=16400864
Thank you for your comments - We could spend weeks going back and forth about the details and accuracy of another's assertions, which is missing my point.
My impression is that most of us tend to get information from the same limited source or types of sources and hang out with people who generally think the same as we do. My question is - at what point does that process damage rational thought and the objective consideration of new information?
My "willful ignorance" question is just an extension of the first.
"By our words or our silence, and by our action or our inaction, we get to influence the choices that people in our circles choose to make. The legacies we leave could easily be marked by either the fist-grip or pinky-hold we have on reality."
Great point!
Thank you Joelle.
Everyday I watch videos and read articles online that liberally quote from all the known leftist sources. I don't watch TV; I read and watch everything online because it's more efficient (no commercials to sit through) and gives me far more sources than TV. And I've come to learn which sources are trustworthy. Online conservative news sources (not Fox News) tend to be very reactive to leftist news and so their output is full of quotes, videos, and transcripts directly from leftist sources. I'm glad to hear that you watched Fox News the other day. That's a start. Fox News, however, is a huge corporation and their owners and managers are well-documented lefties and Trump haters. They are working very hard to keep Trump off the Republlican ballot. What they did to Tucker Carlson proves that they are not a conservative news source. So when you say that you "watched Fox News the other day", you're still not getting much trusted information that would help you truly understand the conservative POV. Newsmax is a better source than Fox News for conservative output. But, why stop there? Wouldn't you want to get as many varied sources of news as possible to form your own opinion? Especially when the MSM censors so many important stories (e.g., the Hunter Biden laptop, Big Tech censorship, the Biden family corruption, the 40,000+ unseen January 6 videos, the origin of COVID-19 virus, etc.)? And yes, it's hard work sorting out the kernals of truth from all the speculation and fear-mongering. But in the final analysis, Mark, it's completely up to you as to how much time and energy you want to spend trying to understand what's going on around us. If you want me to stop sharing news articles with you (today was the first one I've sent to you in several years), I will gladly respect your wishes and cease doing so. I value our friendship more than politics.
I will respectfully default to your last sentence.
There are a hundred different ulterior motives behind different purveyors of so-called truth. I think people can always find or drum up dirt on high profile people but character shines through for all of us to see in those same people. What I see and hear coming from a person's mouth and their actions supersede what people say about them. If they emanate compassion, love, honesty, and kindness through what I see and hear, then I assume they're basically decent folk - that's all we can hope for when a politician is juggling hundreds of conflicts of interests.
On the other hand, when a person is documented in hundreds of recordings or videos emanating greed, dishonesty, vitriol and narcissism, I think they're basically the antithesis of who I admire or support. No intelligent word-spinners are going to change what I've witnessed countless times with the eyes and ears that God gave me.
You get the closing remark, though it has been interesting jousting with you. Take care - Mark
Are you saying that you've reached the point of being unwilling to objectively consider new information?
Nope, I watched Fox news the other day to see what they had to say about Trump's newest indictment and Newsmax about theirs. Per usual, there's a kernel of truth and a whole lot of conspiracy theories and fear -mongering thrown in for good measure. When was the last time that you watched MSNBC, some left leaning profit driven station or NPR about their coverage of anything?
Mark: As per your request in your post, I will try to answer your two questions. Your assertions in your questions are misinformed. Bill Barr is not loyal to Trump, as proven by his statements and actions before and after the 2020 election. Barr was recommended for AG by George W. Bush and Trump naively followed the recommendation because he didn't know the DC players well at the start of his first term. Bush (more of a globalist) and Trump (more of a nationalist) have conflicting views on the role of government and so Bush's recommendation of an AG for Trump was guaranteed to be troublesome. "Dozens of judges" never heard Trump's arguments about the 2020 election because they decided that Trump didn't have any legal standing; most of the cases were never heard for procedural issues, not because of the evidence they contained. And why didn't Trump have standing? Please read the following article carefully and completely to learn why Trump didn't have standing on his legal actions regarding the 2020 election. The article details the parliamentary procedures that happened in Congress on January 6 and 7, 2021, a topic that has not been explained anywhere else that I am aware of. What happened inside the Capital building is just as important as what happened outside the Capital building. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/08/06/reminder-the-parliamentary-motive-behind-the-j6-fedsurrection/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reminder-the-parliamentary-motive-behind-the-j6-fedsurrection&lctg=16400864
Thank you for your comments - We could spend weeks going back and forth about the details and accuracy of another's assertions, which is missing my point.
My impression is that most of us tend to get information from the same limited source or types of sources and hang out with people who generally think the same as we do. My question is - at what point does that process damage rational thought and the objective consideration of new information?
My "willful ignorance" question is just an extension of the first.
Stay well - Mark