Tea leaves?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Aug 24, 2020.

  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Okay. I'm done here. You can't have it both ways. You can't make declarative statements like that and then bemoan your lack of access to information that supports them. Remembering that this is a board about higher education, I would suggest that approach would not secure you a very good grade on an assignment.
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  2. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Bill lets set the record straight.
    I have nothing to do with that group. I condemn the violence of any group, gang, organization, etc.
    You won't find me in that crowd.
  3. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I have access to information, only its limited and I quoted the sources?
    Expected your comments on the issue, not the messenger.
    I wasn't trying to be liked or popular or get grades.
    Just tried to debate issues that are in news.
  4. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    But the Dems already declaring that the new SCOTUS candidate has ties to a secret group.
    President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group
    that holds men are divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and faith. Former members of the group, called People of Praise, say it teaches that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.
    Christians follow the NT teachings.
    Paul the apostle wrote to the Ephesian church.
    He suggested: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
    For the husband is head of the wife, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:22-24).
    And husbands to love their wives.

    I can see how this infuriates the Feminists. But that's a different subject.

    Judges know how to separate fate, religion with their Job - Supreme Court Justices preside over civil and criminal court cases with the goal of upholding, enforcing and interpreting the law. Uniquely, however, the job of a Supreme Court Justice is defending the grandest law in the land: the U.S. Constitution.

    So what now when Ruth Ginsburg RIP attended synagogue she has ties to the chosen people?
    These Judges are top professionals they don't mix personal religion with the duties stated above.
  5. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    "Secret group?" What's "secret" about People of Praise? The only reference to "secret group" I could find re: this group was by some flake on Reddit - must have thought they were "secret" because he didn't know anything about them (and was too lazy to find out.) The group goes back to the 1970s and is believed to have formed - mostly of Roman Catholics - who reacted against the prevailing permissive climate, "free love etc." that had gained acceptance in that time.So they formed a like-minded group and took the opposite direction - pretty simple.

    No, I don't espouse the same principles they do - submission of women to men etc. - but that doesn't make them "secret" or "illegal." Backward --- possibly, as I see it, anyway. Secret? No. And I agree. Judges can - and should- be able to separate their own religious beliefs from their job.

    I don't know that much about the US Constitution, but I was able to access this rapidly:

    (1) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. ... The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can't penalize you because of your religious beliefs. (In theory, anyway.)

    (2) The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the civil rights of the religious.

    So, Lerner - please advise me: WHICH Dem(s) called People of Praise a "Secret Group?" Google won't tell me. Is that a "Secret plot" too? :)
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2020
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Johan here is what I saw earlier today:


    "The Court of God: How a Catholic Secret Society Took Over SCOTUS
    With his latest SCOTUS nomination, Trump advances the designs of a clique of ultra-conservatives with ties to a Catholic secret society and Cold War stalwarts leading the US to the brink of overt fascism.
    by Raul Diego" Mint Press is a left-leaning private online news organization.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2020
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Particularly if the rubric weighs quality of sources and one only cites Rush Limbaugh, Epoch Times, and Project Veritas.
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    You said "But the Dems already declaring that the new SCOTUS candidate has ties to a secret group." that seems to be claiming that the leaders of the Democratic party or at least a large majority of the party is doing this. That is not the case.

    Regarding Antifa, I was saying that Antifa is a bogeyman that our racist President uses to get his supporters excited and activated. You are one example of this. Proud Boys is another example. Not all Trump supporters are Proud Boy members but I suspect that most all Proud Boy members are Trump supporters.

    I'm amazed by something, Lerner. There was a bit of a discussion about lying. I was ridiculing our President for being a pathological liar and telling over 20,000 false and misleading statements over the past less than 4 years. You pointed out three lies that Biden told, two of which were over 30 years ago. Then this discussion ended. Do those three false or misleading statements made by Biden mean that he's as bad as Trump and is also a pathological liar? Or is it supposed to mean that all politicians lie? To my mind the difference is that President Trump is lying to create a false reality for his cult followers to live in as well as himself? This is why he doesn't have to deal with Covid19 anymore. In his world it has been taken care of. He closed down the borders, stopped the China Virus, saved millions of American lives and now it's time to move on.
  9. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Some quote MSNBC, CNN, and likes are obvious left sources, and in my view low-quality sources.
    I also quoted the Hill and other sources.

    The questions about sources are who reports the truth and wich sources distort it and to what degree.
    Check who are sponsors. If sources constantly on attack mode on President Trump, you know this is a highly biased
    source. Today it's easy to spot biased media to the left or opposite.

    Basically when on this tread someone posts left-leaning info, it's good to have the other side of the coin, for the balance.
    We are in elections season and I'm not hiding whom I would prefer to be the president in the next 4 years.
    And if it makes someone consider both sides it's good.
  10. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Left-leaning people, hear what they want to hear don't usually understand what President Trump means most of the time.
    Your 20,000 lies are a huge exaggeration, not to be taken seriously.
    The false reality is on MSNBC, CNN and a likes all the time, 24x7.
    So I'm amazed more about how can you allow the mentioned above sources to affect you. The picture you are painting is far far from the truth.

    For example , I quoted the Hill.
    The Hill features editorial commentaries that provide a reasonably balanced group of columnist that consists of the following:

    Last edited: Oct 1, 2020
  11. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Rush Limbaugh broadcasts opinion. Good opinion that I often agree with, but opinion nevertheless. Of course the distinction between opinion and journalism has pretty much disappeared in this day and age. Much of what passes for journalism today is "analysis", another word for opinion. Editorial decisions at the New York Times about what to place above the fold on the front page with are typically based on opinion as well, about furthering what the Times editorial board calls "the Narrative".

    The Epoch Times is just as credible as the New York Times and the Washington Post. When it comes to reporting actual news, the latter two papers report the same facts as other outlets do. Where they differ is in their opinion pieces and in the "news" they purport to break. These stories, often on top of the front page in headline type, are almost always politically motivated, based on anonymous "sources" and often as not turn out to be flat out wrong.

    My own practice is to assign "news" informal credibility weights (based largely on my own intuition). Any story based entirely on anonymous "sources" gets a low credibility weight simply on principle. That's because I have no way of judging the "source's" access to the kind of information that he or she is supposedly providing, let alone any feel for what the "source's" own biases and motivations might be.

    Seriously, with the internet interested individuals can often bypass journalists entirely and go direct to the source. I've been following the California wildfires with interest and find that the best sources of information on them are local Sheriff's departments' emergency alerts about evacuations and road closures, Cal Fire briefings, webcams and scanner traffic. These are typically where the journalists are getting their own information about these kind of events as well.

    So why must information be filtered through a group of people that I neither like nor trust, before I get it? Where is the value-added?
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  12. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Left -right... I hardly care any more. This piece attempts to tie Amy Coney Barrett via various people and insinuations to Opus Dei - nowhere in it is People of Praise even mentioned. There are a crowd of writers (they call themselves such, anyway) on BOTH sides whose stock-in-trade is scandalmongering (simply because it sells). They're frantically casting about for aspersions to cast. They find nothing and make stuff up as they go along. It pays the bills. Crossed wires and fried wiring - all of it.

    Only thing the article proves is that America's long history of Anti-Catholicism is still alive and well - at least among the less-intelligent. Looks like a failed attempt at a trailer for a Dan Brown novel. (Da Vinci Code and several others). I'm not Catholic - and I'm not Black. But it still gripes my guts when someone slags either group.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2020
  13. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    .. Or Jews, Muslims, Gays, Lesbians. Trans-gendered - whoever is someone else's target of the moment.
  14. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I don't give two bits about her religion kinks. I'm troubled by some of her stated views (like overturning the ACA, and on Roe v. Wade), as well as the way she sees things she rules on as a judge (get a load of this: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-amy-coney-barrett-should-not-be-on-the-supreme-court). These are legitimate concerns.
    Also, I am horrified by the Senate Republicans' behavior on this, and grieving the prospect of an orange carnival barker getting to replace the Notorious R.B.G. on the court. But that's just me - technically not even a Democrat.
  15. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    This is backwards. Eg., I would be highly suspicious if a source would be "balanced" on Putin. The man is an authoritarian huylo, and should be reported on as such. One can argue that over the years, seeking "balance" made CNN biased in favor of Trump not against him.
  16. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    "Notorious R.B.G." That's the best line of the week -- or the month, maybe. I think she would have liked that -- I hope so, at least. :)
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I agree with all of that.

    Also, I'm reasonably sure you didn't think my goal was to defend the New York Times. As for the Washington Post... I'm not going to defend it, but I do think it's less atrocious than the Times, although I'm probably influenced by their still publishing George Will and Radley Balko and for a long time having published Eugene Volokh.

    Plus there's this: https://stevefoerster.com/spirit-of-the-staircase/
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    She's been called that for a long time, so don't worry, she had the opportunity to be amused by it!
  19. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Left media is creating hysteria, a well-orchestrated, and coordinated attack on President Trump.
    While I think some white supremacists in that group, the group had Cubans and other minorities.

    It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university. Wilfred Reilly,
    Mr. Reilly said that about 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You know, the research results we wish to obtain would be a lot more likely if we get to dismiss all the sources of information we don't like.

    You continue to express these assertions without backing them up. As they say, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Share This Page