There are people, here, that believe things are B/W.... they want to label me as a liberal because I don't agree with them and in their mind they can only see their view and the rest are "liberals". They have very narrow-minded views and will only accept what they believe is correct and not look at other "reasonable" sources or information. For example, some people ONLY get their news from Fox News and they think the rest of the media is biased. Hello... Fox News is biased. Of course, I will joke about Fox News, but you have to look at the source, the reporting and the subject. Fox News has a agenda and an audience, just like other news sources. This is where I will look at various sources (including Fox News) and the CONTENT (Important part) and pull upon that. There are "fringe" websites that claim they are providing "true news".... but they are feeding the beast. People will quote them as real news, as if real journalism happened. These are basically opinion blog sites, with little in the way of fact checking and research. The internet has brought out a whole new crop of "tabloids".
Agreed, I assume the major news sources are biased but less than the fringe ones. I read something a long time ago that suggested you try and understand where those who disagree with you are coming from and why they feel the way they do. One way to do so was watch and read some of the things they did, I find it a good practice as it opens your eyes to the tactics and techniques that both sides use.
Like I have said before big issues have lots of variables and pro and cons, it's easy to cherry-pick parts of these issues to match a narrative, and in turn people who agree with said narrative are easier to read and more likely to follow.
Truly free thinking is unpredictable which is very scary to those in power.
I see it as similar to compartmentalizing things/people in ones head to make it easier to think/not think. Labeling, pigeion holeing, claiming people are thinking in black and white, and that they are only labeling you.
Hopefully that makes sense.
I get what you are saying I believe but the here's the thing, and this may be hard for some black and white thinkers to understand, labels are sometimes accurate but not always and rarely all encompassing.
I see a bunch of black and white thinkers on this forum and many are Conservative in the views they express, so should I now assume all people with Conservative views are black and white thinkers like many seem to when a person shares some Liberal views? Hell no, I take it on a person by person basis but many seem to just agree with whatever their leaders or news source or fellow OT member says regardless, which is fine some people don't like to think for themselves too much.
Lots of people like feeling comfortable within a group of like minded people, history has shown it time and time again.
Edit: Sorry as usual I'm off topic!!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-17-2016).]
Neither conservative or liberal are bad tags. I borrow from both philosophies. To do otherwise would be narrow/close minded. I'm usually labeled liberal here. Other places I would be labeled independent or conservative.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 02-17-2016).]
I get what you are saying I believe but the here's the thing, and this may be hard for some black and white thinkers to understand, labels are sometimes accurate but not always and rarely all encompassing.
I see a bunch of black and white thinkers on this forum and many are Conservative in the views they express, so should I now assume all people with Conservative views are black and white thinkers like many seem to when a person shares some Liberal views? Hell no, I take it on a person by person basis but many seem to just agree with whatever their leaders or news source or fellow OT member says regardless, which is fine some people don't like to think for themselves too much.
Lots of people like feeling comfortable within a group of like minded people, history has shown it time and time again.
At a minimum as a family member I would want to know his true cause of death, foul play or not.
Whether or not his cause of death should be made public should only be determined by (1) the will of the family and (2) as the proper course in a criminal case if his death is rule homicide.
This is not a matter of black/white thinking or how open minded anyone is. It is purely respect for the deceased, their family and the rule of law. We want to know, but until we need to know, it's none of our business.
but until we need to know, it's none of our business.
It is our business. SCOTUS justice. Highest court in the land. What if he was poisoned? Cause of death is simple and straightforward... I am not asking who he slept with that night, but what medical condition caused his death.
Age shouldn't matter, it is his position that should demand an OFFICIAL cause of death.
If nothing else, it will put to rest a lot of the rumors going around. If I were the family I think, for the purpose of closure, I would want to know what he died of\from. Granted, Scalia had heart problems among other medical issues according to his doctor. But what if it wasn't his heart? Maybe he ate something that ended up poisoning him. At that point, anyone else at the ranch could be in jeopardy as well. Bottom line, no one else was with the justice when he passed or immediately before or after and he was pronounced by the coroner over the phone. What if the same thing happened to President Obama? "Oh well, he's dead. Let's move on?" The citizens of this country want to know but also have to respect the wishes of the family. But also, is there a point at which, for the better of the country, the wishes of the family would come second? Just asking, because I don't know.
Originally posted by dratts: Other places I would be labeled independent or conservative.
I would be interested to know some of the places you'd be considered conservative. I'd like to see what kind of viewpoints they express. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post any of them in the open forum.
If nothing else, it will put to rest a lot of the rumors going around. If I were the family I think, for the purpose of closure, I would want to know what he died of\from.
..wishes of the family.
Well, it probably wouldnt. I mean folks think we didnt go to the moon, that 911 was an inside job, JFK, etc. But it should be done anway IMO.
Perhaps if you are in office you should sign away your right to hide your cause of death.
Age shouldn't matter, it is his position that should demand an OFFICIAL cause of death.
I agree. I can't imagine a case where a sitting POTUS' cause of death wouldn't be national news. I think any sitting SCOTUS Justice should be the same. These are positions at the highest levels of our government.
As a Judge once told me when I was serving Jury Duty, the Justice process is important. Not only must justice be done, it must "seem" to be done. That is, you need to be able to see that justice is done just be told it was done.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-17-2016).]
It is our business. SCOTUS justice. Highest court in the land. What if he was poisoned? Cause of death is simple and straightforward... I am not asking who he slept with that night, but what medical condition caused his death.
I fail to see where we disagree when poisoning if not self administered would likely be homicide. Short of homicide his cause of death is none of our business. There is only 1 other exception that I can imagine and that would be if his cause of death were related to a decease or virus that could affect the public. But then the need to know would or should be limited to those affected and not the whole country.
Being a public servant does not dissolve your right to privacy. Knowing that he is dead is enough to explain his current inability to perform his duty as an associate justice of the supreme court.
- Mr Scalia has not reported for work and failed to render critical decisions that affect our nation. Why?
- Sir, he is dead.
- Dead?
- Yes sir, Dead....
- How did he die, we need to determine if it is an excusable dead or not.
Well, it probably wouldnt. I mean folks think we didnt go to the moon, that 911 was an inside job, JFK, etc. But it should be done anway IMO.
Perhaps if you are in office you should sign away your right to hide your cause of death.
JFK was killed by a bullet from the moon (fired by Nazis living on the dark side), that ricocheted off of one of the 9/11 planes... all created by a time warp by aliens.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 02-17-2016).]
If it was homicide? How would we know if there was not an official cause of death?
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:
I fail to see where we disagree when poisoning if not self administered would likely be homicide. Short of homicide his cause of death is none of our business. There is only 1 other exception that I can imagine and that would be if his cause of death were related to a decease or virus that could affect the public. But then the need to know would or should be limited to those affected and not the whole country.
Being a public servant does not dissolve your right to privacy. Knowing that he is dead is enough to explain his current inability to perform his duty as an associate justice of the supreme court.
- Mr Scalia has not reported for work and failed to render critical decisions that affect our nation. Why?
- Sir, he is dead.
- Dead?
- Yes sir, Dead....
- How did he die, we need to determine if it is an excusable dead or not.
- Mr Scalia has not reported for work and failed to render critical decisions that affect our nation. Why?
- Sir, he is dead.
- Dead?
- Yes sir, Dead....
- How did he die, we need to determine if it is an excusable dead or not.
- Scalia: mnm, sue me
I'm pretty sure we are more concerned with possible removal of life from him by the hand of another, however that may been done. If it were done I would guess at this level, (the highest in the land) it would have been covered up well. I still think no matter what is said many will not believe it, but I think it needs to be said.
But to be clear, I think homicide is the key we are looking for or concerned about, albeit thru what appears to be suicide, accidental, or natural causes. < Theres the rub.
Neither conservative or liberal are bad tags. I borrow from both philosophies. To do otherwise would be narrow/close minded. I'm usually labeled liberal here. Other places I would be labeled independent or conservative.
On probably 99% of the forums out there when someone doesn't see the same views as others they're labeled a liberal.
If it was homicide? How would we know if there was not an official cause of death?
I am not saying there should not be an autopsy.
I am saying the Official cause of death or autopsy results does not equal a right to know. We are not owed an autopsy, he is. But the results should remain private unless the cause of death warrants criminal charges or is a matter of public health and safety.
Man, I really want to know why he died and the conspiracies are really intriguing. but that does not grant me the right to his autopsy results as if his privacy rights died with him.
I am saying the Official cause of death or autopsy results does not equal a right to know. We are not owed an autopsy, he is. But the results should remain private unless the cause of death warrants criminal charges or is a matter of public health and safety.
Man, I really want to know why he died and the conspiracies are really intriguing. but that does not grant me the right to his autopsy results as if his privacy rights died with him.
Some times, law enforcement DOES keep the cause of death under their hat if foul play is suspected. Revealing that info might jeopardize catching the killer. Personnally, with what I know here, the guy just died in his sleep. I had an uncle go unexpectedly the same way. He was older, but in very good health just the evening before.
On another note, Obuma press conference interrupted me watching a show yesterday, so I listened to him. I LOVED how he pointed out it was his constitutional requirement to appoint someone to the job and he believed in following all the rules in the Constitution as it was intended. I heard him say it, no hearsay or 3rd person quote. Funny how he follows the Constitution completely...unless it interferes with his plans...where he then just does as he pleases. Hes on both sides of the fence and just picks one or the other when its convenient. He remarked how Congress fights him on every appointment he makes. Maybe he might just get the point no one likes him there. None of it of course is his fault, its all Congresses fault....except when he blames it on Bush.
Sorry but after the attempted shaming and calls of bigotry of the justice awhile ago, can't even remember what it was now, I turned to my wife and said, he is going to go one way or the other before Obama is gone.
You don't like what I have to say. Boo Hoo. I have a very strong respect for the Constitution but I don't believe in YOUR INTERPRETATION. (and that is exactly it, as you can NOT talk to the Constitution authors or those who ratified it)
I point out what we would have if we followed the Constitution literally. You call that "extreme"... well, yes, it is extreme, but it is also what you get with a literal interpretation. No Air Force, no Highways, limited telecommunications, etc... enjoy the 3rd world... that is what you would have.... and in truth, we wouldn't even be the US of A if we took the Constitution word for word. We would have fell apart in the Civil War, and WWII would have done us in. A nation divided does not stand. The Federal government would have been too weak to do anything to save this country.
Do you not drive on Federal Highways? Ever use a Vaccine with federally funded research? How about your beef, do you eat USDA inspected meat? Shame on you, if you do, as these are not in the Constitution. Or is it "do as I say, not as I do"?
You don't know my interpretation and the rest of your post is more simpleton logic. We are not even talking about the same things.
You couldn't see another point if it poked you in the eye.
You don't know my interpretation and the rest of your post is more simpleton logic. We are not even talking about the same things.
You couldn't see another point if it poked you in the eye.
I see you didn't answer my questions. I will take it as a yes, you use the services (and benefit from them) of the Federal Government, even though it is not a right granted literally in the Constitution.
So there's no right or wrong in your world then? Everything is up for debate and subject to the popular opinion of the day?
Didn't say that...
If you walk up to a man standing over a dead body,which has been shot, and the standing man is holding a gun.... do you shoot that standing man and kill him? In a B/W world, you would shoot the standing man as he must have committed murder.... in my world, you arrest and let him have his day in court.
I would be interested to know some of the places you'd be considered conservative. I'd like to see what kind of viewpoints they express. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post any of them in the open forum.
I don't belong to many forums. Just here and facebook. I am probably the most fiscally conservative guy you ever met, both personally and politically. When the government taxes me I want the biggest bang for my buck in the spending of it. I am for gun rights. Those are a few of my conservative views. I'm probably a liberal when it comes to social rights. At least here. Are you unaware that this forum leans to the right?
I see you didn't answer my questions. I will take it as a yes, you use the services (and benefit from them) of the Federal Government, even though it is not a right granted literally in the Constitution.
I see why you have so much trouble. You can't understand what people are saying.
Find the sentence with the words [simpleton and logic]. Try and figure it out from there.
Hey,You're welcome. I 'm helpful like that sometimes.
If you walk up to a man standing over a dead body,which has been shot, and the standing man is holding a gun.... do you shoot that standing man and kill him? In a B/W world, you would shoot the standing man as he must have committed murder....
No. Where are people who see things in more "black and white" terms than yourself advocating anything like that?
There are people who wish he was dead. There are people on this list who can't even call the man by his name. That is not criticizing policies, that is true disrespect and hatred. They blame Obama for everything they disagree with. Facts are ignored.
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
I guess nobody can criticize the man's policies without people like you labeling them.
