I did. He assumes way too much, which makes him just another conspiracy guy.
These guys all assume there are only two types of people;
1. The Villain. (those devising plans to get over on The Righteous.) 2. The Hero. (The Righteous.)
He of course see's himself in that later group. The truth is, he's in neither.
He's just another example of an incredibly large percentage of the populace who are little more than proudly uneducated fanatical provocateurs. Running on feelings.
The obligatory backdrop of weapons ( i.e. symbolism) is always a dead giveaway. Everything in that backdrop is about killing. And that's where his "thinking" is at.
There's not a bookshelf nor book in sight...so yeah, he's no thinker. He's a clown.
I must be a 'clown' as well. I haven't picked up but 1 book in years and years.
Irony:
quote
He assumes way too much, which makes him just another conspiracy guy.
These guys all assume there are only two types of people;
1. The Villain. (those devising plans to get over on The Righteous.) 2. The Hero. (The Righteous.) He's just another example of an incredibly large percentage of the populace who are little more than proudly uneducated fanatical provocateurs. Running on feelings.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]
I must be a 'clown' as well. I haven't picked up but 1 book in years and years.
The "clown" reference had nothing to do with the "book" reference. The "book" reference was in relation to him being a "thinker". "He's a clown" is a stand-alone statement.
You can take me to task for inferring that you(?) aren't a "thinker" too, since you've only read 1 book in years & years, but not that I inferred you were a "clown".
Originally posted by Boondawg: These guys all assume there are only two types of people;
1. The Villain. (those devising plans to get over on The Righteous.) 2. The Hero. (The Righteous.)
He's just another example of an incredibly large percentage of the populace who are little more than proudly uneducated fanatical provocateurs. Running on feelings.
The obligatory backdrop of weapons ( i.e. symbolism) is always a dead giveaway. Everything in that backdrop is about killing. And that's where his "thinking" is at.
.
His channel with 832k subscribers was built around firearms, that is why the backdrop. He rarely does any videos that are not firearm reviews and such.
The "clown" reference had nothing to do with the "book" reference. The "book" reference was in relation to him being a "thinker". "He's a clown" is a stand-alone statement.
You can take me to task for inferring that you(?) aren't a "thinker" too, since you've only read 1 book in years & years, but not that I inferred you were a "clown".
You didn't infer anything about anyone. The word you are looking for is imply.
Inferring comes from the receiving end of the process. ex: I inferred that he had implied I was a scofflaw
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-30-2020).]
, belated happy birthday. Movies and TV shows have villians also. Dr Marcus Welby MD was a hero.
