# Special "precious" snowflakes.....???



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

So what do you think, about this........??? Suggest reading the full and SHORT article before posting.

EXCERPT: 
&#8220;People now experience the entire world as a form of bullying. The helicopter parent protects the children from real dangers but also fantasy dangers. These precious snowflakes are the children of political correctness, their parents and schools lead them to believe that the world is perfectly moralistic &#8212; they don&#8217;t live in the real world, it is a fantasy,&#8221; he said.
Schwartz said the pristine self is a sort of narcissism &#8211; individuals who regard themselves as pristine selves cannot handle the unlovingness of the world, even if it manifests itself in indifference rather than malice. To them, everything is an act of offense."

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29435/


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Interesting concept. I'm going to read Schwartz's book.

Mon...oh yeah, right on!


----------



## Nsoitgoes (Jan 31, 2016)

I agree with him up to a point. My (personal) view is that as we concentrate (or rather scatter our attention) to so many of these "causes" we have no attention or outrage left for *really* important issues that we *should* be paying attention to.

We all eventually have to live in the real world where life is unfair and people are less than "nice". We have to learn to suck it up and cope. Those who are brought up in unrealistic bubbles are much less able to cope with the harsh environment they find themselves in when parents and schools cease to protect them from reality.

I think that this unrealistic and narcissistic world they live in colors and insulates them from the appreciation of the real problems of others - which they see as nothing to do with them. Hence the rise of rape culture and the sort of society where people will take video of someone being brutally beaten rather than doing something (calling the cops at the very least)


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

_Anything that inhibits free speech is wrong_. However, a distinction must be made between free speech and hate speech. I think some people have trouble with that. They blur the line, and to that extent, there is some merit in the âspecial snowflakeâ argument. However, on the other side of that coin, there are people who engage in hate speech and try to pass it off as free speech. Nope. Neither thing is acceptable.

If you engage in hate speech and attempt to take cover under the umbrella of what you term an avoidance of âpolitical correctness,â I will call you out every single time. Iâve asked many people to provide me with a definition of âpolitical correctness.â Not a single one has been able to define it beyond wanting to say whatever nasty, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic and often erroneous or misleading thing that skitters through their head, without reproach or offense. So basically, they want to be incendiary jerks without consequence. 

Donât shove that garbage down my throat. Feel free to be whatever kind of jerk you want, and say â within reason â whatever you like. But you donât get to tell me I canât be offended by it or turn my back to you. You _are_ being offensive and in some cases, you are inciting hatred and violence. You donât any longer deserve my attention or consideration.

This race to the bottom, the coarsening of social and political dialogue, the insistence to see how rude and nasty we can be to others instead of respectful and courteous, troubles me a great deal. There are ways to say what we want to say and make our points without being overtly offensive. In fact, people tend to listen more receptively when the person speaking to them is showing respect by avoiding inflammatory language. 

If you donât know how to speak without giving offense, go ahead. Just be prepared to live with the consequences â many of which may not be your actual goal. Is it really worth it, just to say something that feels good in the moment?

My momma always taught me that if something feels really, really good to say, then itâs probably best to think about another way to say it. The goal isnât to score people off. The goal is to speak with purpose and intent â and to actually make a valid point. Itâs not just to make people angry and offend.

Language matters. Think about what you want to accomplish with it.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Where'd you pick up the College Fix, Sourdough? On the coffee table down to the frat house?

I did have a crack about hoping to pledge next year, but it's possible that has some sort of negative connotation that would be offensive to some.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

$79.00 on sale at Amazon. Think I'll pass on this book.

Mon


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

eep:This article:

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26853/

This quote from the article made me LAUGH OUT LOUD!

"WE DEMAND that Stanford renames White Plaza to Black Plaza. Naming a central plaza after a race is hateful."

How about this demand?

"WE DEMAND that swimming pools be abolished at Stanford, since their blueness shows implicit support for the Israeli flag, further dehumanizing the Palestinian people."

EDITED TO SAY:

OOPS! I missed this at the bottom of the article.

&#8220;We put this together as a light-hearted April Fool&#8217;s joke,&#8221; he told The College Fix via email Thursday. &#8220;It&#8217;s disappointing that a small number of vocal people missed multiple jokes, but we take comfort in the hundreds of students who found it funny.&#8221; 

Bad, Bad me! eep:


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

frogmammy said:


> $79.00 on sale at Amazon. Think I'll pass on this book.
> 
> Mon


Did you check at Abebooks.com?


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
*~ Attributed to Socrates by Plato*


"I would there were no age between ten and three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the rest; for there is nothing in the between but getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry, stealing, fighting"
*~ The Winter's Tale by William Shakespeare
Act 3, Scene 3*


"... I find by sad Experience how the Towns and Streets are filled with lewd wicked Children, and many Children as they have played about the Streets have been heard to curse and swear and call one another Nick-names, and it would grieve ones Heart to hear what bawdy and filthy Communications proceeds from the Mouths of such..."
*~ A Little Book for Children and Youth (Being Good Counsel and Instructions for Your Children, Earnestly Exhorting Them to Resist the Temptation of the Devil...),  Robert Russel, 1695

*
"The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females...[Now that it is] forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion."
*~ Times of London, from an issue in 1816*


"A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages...chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship."
*~ Scientific American, July 1859


*"Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, prematurities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline, the haste to know and do all befitting man's estate before its time, the mad rush for sudden wealth and the reckless fashions set by its gilded youth--all these lack some of the regulatives they still have in older lands with more conservative conditions."
*~ The Psychology of Adolescence, Granville Stanley Hall, 1904


*âWe can assert with some confidence that our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity.â
*~ T. S. Eliot, 1948

*'nuff said


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

far as I can tell they've said the same thing about every generation. I must say though I've said this before there's this dollar store I go to around lunch time when they all pile in and I haven't found any what you call bad ones. there's some awful quiet and polite who hold the door etc. then there's rambunctious ones. but still say they're sorry if they bump into people.(I was that way myself) could be a different area of the city but they're all good kids as far as I can see. I remember dad saying in the 50's kids are not the way they use to be. no respect at all. ~Georgia


----------



## CGL2011 (Dec 18, 2011)

Sourdough said:


> So what do you think, about this........??? Suggest reading the full and SHORT article before posting.
> 
> EXCERPT:
> âPeople now experience the entire world as a form of bullying. The helicopter parent protects the children from real dangers but also fantasy dangers. These precious snowflakes are the children of political correctness, their parents and schools lead them to believe that the world is perfectly moralistic â they donât live in the real world, it is a fantasy,â he said.
> ...



SD,
I first saw this article posted elsewhere, on another site. Since you have brought it here, I now have to go back to the comments section there, and see if any of them "sound like you". I'll wonder if you stumbled into this in the same place. (At least I know you're not MDB, that would be too scary,lol.):huh:


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Political Correctness is nothing less than mind control of the masses. A herding in of the Sheep so to speak. I don't have a problem with someone believing in hogwash, but when it is considered a crime to object or call them on their hogwash, there is something very wrong with the picture. There was a time when people who had lost a marble were ignored and we just considered the source and moved on.

Everything that is being turned upside down in our culture is just part of the plan to transform society. This is brought to you by Multi Media, Education, Athletics and Government.
I will probably be flamed for my viewpoint and that is OK..this is my original thought that I have a right to for the time being.
There are a lot of people I respect and admire and enjoy reading about their lives and I can still disagree with their political or spiritual views. It's called Tolerance.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

That is interesting, in that most of you'all got something entirely different than I did from the article.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

And your take on it?

Mon


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Sourdough said:


> That is interesting, in that most of you'all got something entirely different than I did from the article.


I didn't read the article, I just like posting.:nana:


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

"He told _The Fix_ he does believe the tide is turning away from political correctness, however, and points to the presidential election campaigns as evidence. &#8220;The fact that we have Trump campaigning as the &#8216;anti-political correctness&#8217; candidate is really interesting,&#8221; Schwartz said. &#8220;It shows how far we have come and that this movement has lost control of itself.&#8221;

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29435/


I think this article is 1/2 right.

Yes, for the last 2-3 generations we have raised a bunch of narcissists.
I'd say the last 2 generations are pretty bad.......
That's why teachers have no control of the classroom, everyone gets a trophy, and we have 'safe speech zones".

I think the surge for Trumps 'un-political correctness' is embraced by those who did not raise a batch of narcissists, who live in reality, which is harsh and sometimes unforgiving. 
We are sick of all the touchy feely ooo that hurts my feewings, wa wa wa crapola.


That's what I took from this article.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Political Correctness is nothing less than mind control of the masses. A herding in of the Sheep so to speak. I don't have a problem with someone believing in hogwash, but when it is considered a crime to object or call them on their hogwash, there is something very wrong with the picture. There was a time when people who had lost a marble were ignored and we just considered the source and moved on.
> 
> Everything that is being turned upside down in our culture is just part of the plan to transform society. This is brought to you by Multi Media, Education, Athletics and Government.
> I will probably be flamed for my viewpoint and that is OK..this is my original thought that I have a right to for the time being.
> There are a lot of people I respect and admire and enjoy reading about their lives and I can still disagree with their political or spiritual views. It's called Tolerance.


The only thing that I don't like about your post is the apologetic tone. You don't have to justify having a right to your opinion. That is part of the legacy that the snowflake culture is leaving us.

You left out internet forums as being one of the promoters of the snowflake mentality. We can't even say when something is stupid anymore, since it hurts someone's feelings and gets quickly censored by a moderator who supports the crusade.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I'm not sorry.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Political Correctness is nothing less than mind control of the masses. A herding in of the Sheep so to speak. I don't have a problem with someone believing in hogwash, but when it is considered a crime to object or call them on their hogwash, there is something very wrong with the picture. There was a time when people who had lost a marble were ignored and we just considered the source and moved on.
> 
> Everything that is being turned upside down in our culture is just part of the plan to transform society. This is brought to you by Multi Media, Education, Athletics and Government.
> I will probably be flamed for my viewpoint and that is OK..this is my original thought that I have a right to for the time being.
> There are a lot of people I respect and admire and enjoy reading about their lives and I can still disagree with their political or spiritual views. It's called Tolerance.


You and I can have a conversation about anything you like, provided it is respectful and you can support what you assert. You can call something hogwash and I have no problem with that. But for the conversation to be useful, you need to support your contentions, not just parrot alt-right wing talking points. So let's break it down:



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Political Correctness is nothing less than mind control of the masses.


Some people say stuff like the above all the time. No one can ever say who is controlling the minds of the masses or why. Please cite me to any credible source that demonstrates your point.

And again:



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I don't have a problem with someone believing in hogwash, but when it is considered a crime to object or call them on their hogwash, there is something very wrong with the picture.


Can you cite me to a single instance where you, or anyone else you know, for that matter, has been subjected to criminal prosecution as a result of calling something hogwash? This is the kind of emotional hyperbole that you and others take to be some sort of gospel truth with no basis whatsoever for such a statement.



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Everything that is being turned upside down in our culture is just part of the plan to transform society. This is brought to you by Multi Media, Education, Athletics and Government.


I wrote an entire post not long ago about how one source in the media, Fox "News," consistently lies and misleads its audience: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...8-what-sponsored-news-really.html#post7758645 

Not one person refuted that post beyond saying they just hadn't "been able to find any abnormalities" in Fox's "reporting." Which was pretty funny and sad, since I'd just cited him to a ton of them. So again, you can make hyper-emotional statements all you like such as what you said above, but in the absence of any factual proof, you're merely gasbagging -- and, at least by me, will be afforded the due consideration to which you are entitled. (I doubt you care a bit about that!) At the risk of mind-numbing repetition, if you can credibly source any basis for your beliefs, I'm all ears.

That said, I, too, am distressed when I learn of instances where young people on college campuses refuse to hear incendiary points of view merely because they find the subject matter distasteful. Censorship of any sort is not a solution, and to that extent, we agree. But the problem appears to be with _some_ of the students -- not the college campuses that want to offer the controversial subject matter -- so I would challenge your contention that "Education" is the problem. I agree with *Sourdough*'s article to the very narrow extent that _some_ parents have overprotected their children such that they are unable to deal with the real world around them. But far more often, I see instances of people who say despicable things, indulging in hate speech, who then blow the referee's whistle and cry, "because political correctness!!" It's just an attempt to act 14 without consequences.

Part of "Tolerance" is showing respect. Good grief, it's just manners. Our discussions can be those of a rude adolescent or a respectful adult. Based on which we choose, we will be treated accordingly by society -- and we all have to live within that to one degree or another, whether we like it or not.

So fundamentally, we have a choice. We can either elevate the dialogue, or we can drag it down into the gutters. Will we simply snipe from the sidelines because we _want_ to believe the things we say, adding nothing of substance to the discussion? Or will we challenge ourselves to _find a basis_ for the things we want to believe, and discuss society's ills on that level? 

I will listen to anything you say if you are willing to work within a framework of courteous conversation. You can certainly choose to express yourself otherwise, and without apology. That's your right. What's not your right is to require me to listen.

Lastly, for clarity's sake, I don't find the post of yours that I'm responding to here to be rude or disrespectful. Just unsupported by facts.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

> The helicopter parent protects the children from real dangers but also fantasy dangers


Define fantasy danger?

I was a helio mom. Proud of it, and would do it again......
My kids didn't sleep over at friends houses, not until they were almost teens and I knew the family.
When my kids were in public schools, I asked the teachers a lot of questions, asked them to justify their actions, etc......
Sat with my kids while we watched TV, we discussed everything from "what is that commercial trying to sell" to "do you think this is appropriate, what does this teach, etc."
They did not have cell phones until they were driving (20,19 and 16).
They did not have a computer/tv cell phone in their rooms.......

I could go on and on.
Unfortunately I 'relaxed' with the youngest. 
My older 2 today will say "NOW I know why you did x-y-z, thank you".
Social media does NOT rule my older two. 
They do not 'go w/ the flow' nor do they 'blindly follow'.
The one thing I pounded into their brains when I home schooled was "question, everything. Do it with respect, but question, everything. SEEK answers until you are satisfied." 
I trained them how to read the environment they were in, how to read body language, pitch and tone of voice, facial expressions, etc.
And after what we all went thru, they now (the older 2) can read thru a well affixed mask.

Yep, 100% hands on, engaged helio mom!
My older 2 are living proof that it's not a bad thing.
My youngest will come around, My God is bigger than everything imaginable.
I trust Him.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Raeven said:


> Some people say stuff like the above all the time. No one can ever say who is controlling the minds of the masses or why. Please cite me to any credible source that demonstrates your point.
> 
> And again:
> 
> ...


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Do I think Global Warming is hogwash? For the most part, yes.
Do I think people should be prosecuted for disagreeing with a viewpoint? no.
Most of the Media and a lot of Entertainers..Singers, Actors,Movie Studio's promote deviate sexual behavior,violence and contribute to the moral decay of society.....now the fun begins.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

A sample of Media Corruption.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/government-schools-for-kids-government-media-for-adults


Government forces a vast majority of American kids into a cookie-cutter manufacturing plant (called "schools").

The inputs are young, innocent, curious, creative and unique kids. The output is a homogenized group that can't wait to leave because they've learned to hate learning with a passion. Many will never read a book again in their entire life.

The kids have been also been drilled for 18 years to (a) always defer to and revere "authority" (b) follow orders, and (c) embrace statism. We all know that the "great" presidents are those who snuffed away the greatest amount of individual liberty.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

You're saying it's "corruption" to be married? Or have a brother? Nothing in your post has any logical basis. Please explain to me, and anybody else who even reads, what is corrupt about marriage. Actually, I've had my own problems with the institution, but would admire anybody who could make it work. Also, I consider having either a brother, or a sibling(Incidentally, for your future edification, a brother is a sibling) to be something way beyond your control, but you see it as corrupt? Wha??

Your next post, are you saying that education is also bad? corrupt? whatever it is you're trying to say? Why. I don't mean for you to quote a dingbat website, but tell me, in your own words, what is so corrupt about education. Brothers. Siblings. And marriage. 

Thank you in advance.
PS: Almost forgot...18 years to finish school? No wonder I don't understand.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

When manipulation replaces inspiration, the result is obfuscation, which tends to benefit manipulation vis-a-vis inventions by Heron of Alexandria, the concept of bread and circuses, and the salesmanship of P.T. Barnum.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

There's a sucker born every minute. P.T. Barnum


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> There's a sucker born every minute. P.T. Barnum


Well actually, very likely not. Which is why I referred to Barnum's salesmanship savvy above as an example of the damage manipulation can do. 'Question everything', sound familiar?

http://www.factfixx.com/2011/10/30/misquoted-theres-a-sucker-born-every-minute-p-t-barnum/


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I knew knew knew you would prove my point!!!
XOOXOXOXOXOXOOXOX


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

What he really said to his sales staff is: "There's a sucker born every minute, now get out there and suck".........P.T. Barnum




Laura Zone 5 said:


> There's a sucker born every minute. P.T. Barnum


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I knew knew knew you would prove my point!!!
> XOOXOXOXOXOXOOXOX


If you meant that people who choose to make decisions based on emotional biases vs. critical thinking, and also regularly choose to hopscotch over the parts that contradict their feelings, quite regularly get duped by agenda driven wordsmiths, then yes, that was my point. 

Ironically, _practically everyone_ with an agenda, regardless of whether they themselves consider their agenda a cause or even a belief system, is at some time tempted to accuse their opponents of manipulation in order to discredit them. Many succumb.

I don't have a problem with discussing opposing viewpoints. But, anytime someone lets their passion overpower their cognition, their ability to employ critical thinking, I get one of these faces...:yuck:. Because, even in situations where I would tend to side with their position, they've just succeeded in lowering the quality of the discussion. 

The funny (that's funny as in ironical, not funny ha ha) things is, while they might actually be successful in gaining support because of the emotional responses they evoke, the trade-off is, that all of the available pertinent information likely hasn't been ferreted out through civil discussion before the issue is declared a done deal. That's the sad part to me. Because people who blithely accept that tactic as okay might as well be saying 'let's burn all the books'.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I'm not going to debate anything. Either you agree or you don't....life is too short. And I don't care one way or the other.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Right on Wolfie

I thought the OP was asking us to read a piece and then share our thoughts?
I thought my reply was pretty straight forward, without lots of perty words......
No one answered my question of "what is a fantasy danger"?


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm sorry Raeven. 

I'm sorry for the times in the past that I belittled you through reverse discrimination. You may not even recall any of them, but every time I've seen it done since then, I remembered.

As well, I'm sorry for taking much longer than I should have to say it.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

60 Years Ago Aldous Huxley Predicted How Global Freedom Would Perish

1.) Technology, Bureaucracy and Television Would be Used to Enslave Us
2.) Advertising Will Bypass Rationality and Capture the Mindâs of Children
3.) The Rise of Dictatorship Based on Terrorism
4.) The Pharmacological Revolution Will Make Us Love Slavery
5.) Political Candidates Would Become Merchandise Marketed by Professionals


http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/10/10/60-years-ago-aldous-huxley-predicted-global-freedom-die/


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America


The fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

What Exactly Is Agenda 21?

When most folks hear the words âAgenda 21â they have one of three responses:

1. Huh? Whatâs that?

2. Oh yay! Itâll turn the world into Utopia and global warming will stop and life will be rainbows and unicorns again!

3. Itâs a plan to remove personal liberty and move us closer to a one-world government. Where the heck is my tinfoil?
Some folks donât even believe it exists, others think it exists but is a good thing turned into a nasty conspiracy theory, and the majority are blissfully oblivious. Even though many people donât realize it, weâre all being nudged toward an Agenda-21 ruled world. Itâs easy, too, because it promises a green world of lollipops and rainbows and most of it will be âfree.â

To put it as simply as possible, Agenda 21 is world domination with a warm, fuzzy glow. Once you understand it, youâll never look at âregulationsâ the same way again.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/what-exactly-agenda-21


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

When I am asked to "cite a reliable source" what does that mean?

Is 'credible' a relative term?

Wolfie, we are surround by those who prefer the comforts of the warm sand wrapped around their entire heads.......they scream for 'credible this, or reliable that' but if is not what their itching ears want to hear, then they strike with put downs, name calling, and a vile hate filled speech that they so vehemently swear the 'other side' is full of.......

Schools claim 0 tolerance on bullying, but when someone stands up to the bully; the bullied, is punished.
Wait what?
Yep, all true. 
There are policies in place that claim NO BULLYING (intimidation, name calling, badgering, stalking, language that degrades a person so much they live in fear, etc) BUT the second a bullied person stands up and says NO MORE.......it is THEY who are punished.

So weird huh?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Good point!...after all One Country's Rebel is another Country's Freedom Fighter.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Karl, it is indeed times like these, when I look around me and see hatred and ignorance fighting a (hopefully) losing battle that I need to look inside, and wonder "Is there any of that in me?" "Do I possess those qualities that I revile, and if so, how can I get rid of them right now!?" 

Your post made me think that, and I appreciate it. Some things are never easy.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> When I am asked to "cite a reliable source" what does that mean?
> 
> Is 'credible' a relative term?


 âCredibleâ means supported by facts and actual evidence, *Laura*. Not really a mystery. It means you donât take what you read or hear at face value. You research it with a critical eye to determine if there are _facts_ to support what is being stated. 

For example, *WWS* says the words, âAgenda 21,â as if just saying those words imports sinister meaning to his insinuations. They donât. If you actually research âAgenda 21,â you find out it is a _non-binding, voluntary_ action plan of the UN from 1992, with an intention to work toward sustainable development in the world. But if youâre a climate change denier, youâve already rejected sound science and itâs pretty easy to parrot Zerohedge, a woo-woo, alt-right, conspiracy theory website, lift their exact language to make a post and pretend youâre an original thinker. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-13/what-exactly-agenda-21

Itâs complete garbage, but if you _want_ to believe it, I guess factual evidence doesnât really matter anymore. Personally, I insist on a higher standard for myself and the people I want around me.

And no, "credible" is the least relative term there is. Itâs actually a fairly static standard. Either something is true, or it isnât.

*Karl*, I appreciate your words, even if I canât think of any specific example of what you mean. I admire anyone, including you and *Clem*, who is willing to examine his or her biases and determine if they are based on facts or if theyâre merely indulging in confirmation bias. I know for myself, any time I hold a position and canât state with precision why I hold the opinion I have, then I need to test and investigate whether what I believe is based in reality or not. As you and *Clem* both know, issues often come in shades of gray. There is perhaps merit on both sides to one degree or another. That means using gradation in our thinking and yes â sometimes even big words.

My guess is, if someone hasnât worked out how to apply that standard to their thinking by now, it will be a real challenge for them, and most likely impossible.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

"&#8220;Credible&#8221; means supported by facts and actual evidence, *Laura*. Not really a mystery. It means you don&#8217;t take what you read or hear at face value. You research it with a critical eye to determine if there are _facts_ to support what is being stated."

I totally agree with this statement.
TOTALLY.
That's the one thing I hammered into my kids heads, ask questions until you are satisfied, question everything, research research research.
"Not really a mystery" is an 'extra comment' that was not only unneeded for an educated discussion, but opens the doors for nastiness and digs.
Another thing I taught my kids. 
If their 'extra comment' brings nothing to the table positive, keep it to themselves, if they want to continue a discussion.

I can provide 'evidence, facts, articles published by reputable educated people, etc.' proving that our food, is not safe.
I can provide case study information, doctors reports, etc. showing that because of the chemicals that our food is saturated in, disease; both physical and mental has reached Biblical perportions. 

But you will still have folks, no matter how many sources are sited, data is revealed, etc, will still claim "no, I want a CREDIBLE source".
Hence my question.

What is credible to one person is hogwash to another......for no other reason than they don't like that source. I
t doesn't matter if the source is true, factual, etc. it will be denounced because it is not the listeners preferred source.
Does that make sense?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

From someone who regularly drops snarky comments into her posts, I find it rather amusing that you're lecturing me about that. 

It isn't a matter of "liking" or "preferring" a source. It's a matter of learning whether the source provides valid, factual information for its conclusions, or is just leading you down a superficial path with no factual data to support what they say. 

Some sources reliably report the truth, supporting their positions with facts again and again, and over time, I trust them more. Others, such as Zerohedge, have so consistently "reported" false information supported by nothing of substance, that I have no problem discounting whatever nutty thing they're saying on any given day.

Do you think Zerohedge is a truthful, reliable source, *Laura*? What does âAgenda 21â mean to you?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Raeven said:


> From someone who regularly drops snarky comments into her posts, I find it rather amusing that you're lecturing me about that.


No lecture here, just an observation.
I usually don't come out of the gate with a snark, but I will see a snark and raise 'em one!



> It isn't a matter of "liking" or "preferring" a source. It's a matter of learning whether the source provides valid, factual information for its conclusions, or is just leading you down a superficial path with no factual data to support what they say.


If 3 sites / sources provide valid, factual, information to say that our food supply is being poisoned, but the hearer 'doesn't believe' anything unless it comes from THEIR sources (which all agree with the hearers position).....
Who's source is accurate? The one providing factual valid information, or the one that the hearer prefers?

Because if the hearer is presented with multiple sites with factual valid provable via statistics / professionals in their fields.........yet STILL chooses to only rely on their sources, which provides the exact opposite information; whose source is right?



> Some sources reliably report the truth, supporting their positions with facts again and again, and over time, I trust them more. Others, such as Zerohedge, have so consistently "reported" false information supported by nothing of substance, that I have no problem discounting whatever nutty thing they're saying on any given day.


Just because someone says it over and over, does not make it true.
There's a lot of junk information out there......whoooo dang lots of it.
I see it on my tv every day.
I see it on my computer, every day.
People thought Noah was nutty too........:drum:



> Do you think Zerohedge is a truthful, reliable source, *Laura*? What does âAgenda 21â mean to you?


I don't know what Zerohedge is, and Agenda 21 means nothing to me because I have no idea what it is.......

I thought the OP here was about an article posted.
That article was posted by "The College Fix"........


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If 3 sites / sources provide valid, factual, information to say that our food supply is being poisoned, but the hearer 'doesn't believe' anything unless it comes from THEIR sources (which all agree with the hearers position).....
> Who's source is accurate? The one providing factual valid information, or the one that the hearer prefers?
> 
> Because if the hearer is presented with multiple sites with factual valid provable via statistics / professionals in their fields.........yet STILL chooses to only rely on their sources, which provides the exact opposite information; whose source is right?


You keep saying "prefers." You're not hearing me. I don't "prefer" certain sources. I simply find some are truthful, and others aren't. To the extent that I prefer the truth, I find some sources credible and others not. There's an enormous difference, but I can see you are struggling with it.



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Just because someone says it over and over, does not make it true.
> There's a lot of junk information out there......whoooo dang lots of it.
> I see it on my tv every day.
> 
> I see it on my computer, every day.


 On these points, we agree.



Laura Zone 5 said:


> I don't know what Zerohedge is, and Agenda 21 means nothing to me because I have no idea what it is.......
> 
> I thought the OP here was about an article posted.
> That article was posted by "The College Fix"........


Wasn't me who hijacked the thread into global warming or Agenda 21. But it went that way, and I refuted what was stated. You yourself keep veering off into poisoned food, as if someone is disagreeing with you on that issue. Where do you see that? So far as I have noted, you're the only one discussing it.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Raeven said:


> You keep saying "prefers." You're not hearing me. I don't "prefer" certain sources. I simply find some are truthful, and others aren't. To the extent that I prefer the truth, I find some sources credible and others not. There's an enormous difference, but I can see you are struggling with it.


Terms 'you and your' are generic terms, not, YOU personally, just a general term

Let's say the topic is bla bla bla.
You think bla bla bla is true.
I think Bla bla bla is malarkey.

I present 3 or more sources, with valid, truthful, factual, statistical evidence that bla bla bla is not true.

They are not your 'sources' for truth, but, the information is valid, truthful and statistically sound. 

Do you accept that your sources could be wrong?
Can you accept that sources that are not your first choice for valid factual information may be right, dare I say, accurate and your sources were wrong?
Because if you answer NO to both of the above questions, then you (generic you) PREFER your sources for information, true or not.

God I hope this is understandable......



> Wasn't me who hijacked the thread into global warming or Agenda 21. But it went that way, and I refuted what was stated.


So why ask me what I think about Hedgehog news or Agenda 21?

I asked a question posts and posts ago, about 'what is fantasy danger' (as the OP's article stated) and NO ONE answered.....we went down a rabbit hole!!



> You yourself keep veering off into poisoned food, as if someone is disagreeing with you on that issue. Where do you see that? So far as I have noted, you're the only one discussing it.


I was using that topic as an example because there are hard lines drawn on each side.
Please refer to my above example of "bla bla bla".


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Let's say the topic is bla bla bla.
> You think bla bla bla is true.
> I think Bla bla bla is malarkey.
> 
> ...


Where we have a sticking point is whether the sources you offer do _in fact_ offer valid, truthful, factual, statistical evidence. I don't care how many or how few of your sources you offer. _If they are factually true, I have no problem accepting them_. If the situation were reversed, would you?

I grabbed Zerohedge because it had already been offered as all those things, and I noticed you didn't disagree with it or mention anything then about thread hijacking. Zerohedge is anything _but_ a credible source. Instead, your next post went on to complain how you and *WWS* are surrounded "by those who prefer the comforts of the warm sand wrapped around their entire heads.......they scream for 'credible this, or reliable that' but if is not what their itching ears want to hear, then they strike with put downs, name calling, and a vile hate filled speech that they so vehemently swear the 'other side' is full of......."

So I think I can be forgiven for assuming you were defending his post as if it is a view you also possess. I must mention, too, that there appears to be a hint of snark in that response about something I don't see in this thread; namely, "screaming for 'credible this, or reliable that' but if is not what their itching ears want to hear, then they strike with put downs, name calling, and a vile hate filled speech..." 

Could you point out where anyone has struck with put downs, name calling and a vile, hate-filled speech?

I'm sorry no one wants to talk to you about 'fantasy danger,' but it appears no one does. Probably because the term is self-explanatory, meaning a danger people respond to but doesn't actually exist. Like voter registration fraud. Or sexual assault by transgendered persons in bathrooms.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Where we have a sticking point is whether the sources you offer do _in fact_ offer valid, truthful, factual, statistical evidence. I don't care how many or how few of your sources you offer. _If they are factually true, I have no problem accepting them_. * If the situation were reversed, would you?*


Absolutely. 
The sticking point with me is this: if the source is tied to the government, or any entity that stands to profit from 'their version of truth', that's a no go for me.
I like good old fashioned journalist that go out and dig for truth!!



> I grabbed Zerohedge because it had already been offered as all those things, and I noticed you didn't disagree with it or mention anything then about thread hijacking. Zerohedge is anything _but_ a credible source. Instead, your next post went on to complain how you and *WWS* are surrounded "by those who prefer the comforts of the warm sand wrapped around their entire heads.......they scream for 'credible this, or reliable that' but if is not what their itching ears want to hear, then they strike with put downs, name calling, and a vile hate filled speech that they so vehemently swear the 'other side' is full of......."


Surround is an understatement!!



> So I think I can be forgiven for assuming you were defending his post as if it is a view you also possess. I must mention, too, that there appears to be a hint of snark in that response about something I don't see in this thread; namely, "*screaming for 'credible this, or reliable that' but if is not what their itching ears want to hear, then they strike with put downs, name calling, and a vile hate filled speech..."*


The General Chat / Politics frequenters of ANY board (not just this one) are who I have in mind with that comment. 
THAT is true and you can see that on ANY GC/Pol. board.
You can quote, site, explain till your blue in the face, and they tow that line (on both side of the fence). 



> Could you point out where anyone has struck with put downs, name calling and a vile, hate-filled speech?


Not recently, I have not been in GC since you had to have a hall pass to get in there, and I have never been in Politics (since it went private).
I forgot to a subtle digs. That too!!



> I'm sorry no one wants to talk to you about 'fantasy danger,' but it appears no one does. Probably because the term is self-explanatory, meaning a danger people respond to but doesn't actually exist. Like voter registration fraud. Or sexual assault by transgendered persons in bathrooms.


Voter Fraud

More Voter Fraud http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...-investigation-expands-to-57-indiana-counties

ABC News is one source, and I think The Indianapolis Star is the other.
Their source is the Indiana State Police.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Absolutely.
> The sticking point with me is this: if the source is tied to the government, or any entity that stands to profit from 'their version of truth', that's a no go for me.
> I like good old fashioned journalist that go out and dig for truth!!


That's pretty much everyone, isn't it? If you dig deep, you often find there is a profit motive or agenda from many sources. However, they are often disparate, and that's when your powers of reason must come into play.

Me, I have more trust in the ability of government to do good than you do, and we are unlikely to agree on any part of such a discussion so let's not waste our time or breath on it. Of course, if you wish to have the discussion, I'm up for it anytime.



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Surround is an understatement!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really? HT skews mostly right wing conservative and/or libertarian, as do the spinoff sites. What sites are you visiting that are infested with left wing progressive liberals like me? I'd love to see an example of where you have "site (sic), explain till your (sic) blue in the face, and they tow that line (on both sides of the fence)." Sounds like you're saying that if someone doesn't agree with you, they must simply be wrong. 



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not recently, I have not been in GC since you had to have a hall pass to get in there, and I have never been in Politics (since it went private).


Then why bring it up? If you haven't been subjected to it recently, it seems tangential to mention it. A red herring or a straw man, in the current vernacular.



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Voter Fraud
> 
> More Voter Fraudhttp://www.theindychannel.com/news/...-investigation-expands-to-57-indiana-counties
> 
> ...


With respect to your first link from the Indianapolis Star, I accept that link as a factual, credible source. However, I don't accept that it stands for proof that significant voter fraud has occurred. What it reports is that there is an investigation into voter fraud, and of 28,000 submitted voter registration forms, they have confirmed that 10 have fraudulent information.

The second link is that of an ABC-affiliated network channel and also appears to be a factual credible source. It reports that the investigation into Indiana voter fraud has been expanded to 56 counties and indicates that if a voter is affected, they may not know this until election day and would be required to vote on a provisional ballot until their identity could be verified.

If true, then it is disturbing and absolutely should be investigated to a full conclusion. However, I would caution that at this point, what you have offered is evidence of _an investigation into voter fraud -- not that it has, in fact, occurred_. If it is determined in the future that the organization that was working to fraudulently register voters and/or alter registered voters' personal information, then that is a serious crime and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But don't you think we should wait until we see if that is in fact proved? I mean, that's the Constitutional way to go about it, isn't it? Innocent unless proven guilty?

I would raise a few counterpoints to consider.

First, it strikes me as odd that any organization, legitimate or otherwise, would be dumb enough to spend time or effort attempting to fraudulently turn the election in Indiana. It's a blood red state whose former Governor is on the Republican ticket. For it to go any way _other_ than to the Republican column would automatically warrant further investigation. IOW, voter fraud of any kind is only likely to be successful in states where the vote is close. That hardly describes Indiana.

Second, why bother messing with actual voters' personal information when 1) the fraud will so easily be discovered by the actual voters going to the polls and pointing out the invalid information; and 2) it's so much easier to tamper with electronic voting machines? Much, _much_ easier to manipulate votes _after_ they have occurred than before. To learn more about this, spend some time here: http://blackboxvoting.org/

Third, 10 "confirmed" fraudulent voter registrations is hardly enough to turn an election. "Fraudulent" could mean a transposed number on an address, or someone registered when they were prohibited by a felony conviction. It isn't that voter registration fraud doesn't occur, it's that it is statistically insignificant:

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...er-id-laws-found-no-voter-impersonation-fraud

As all the above links point out, there are many _allegations_ of voter impersonation fraud -- and very, very few actual _proved cases_ of it.

Lastly, I would point out that if voter impersonation fraud is caught, then it didn't actually occur, did it?

I do hope this turns out to be the situation in Indiana. We'll see when their investigation is completed. I will be watching to learn the outcome.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Sourdough said:


> ]So what do you think, about this..[/B]......??? Suggest reading the full and SHORT article before posting.
> 
> EXCERPT:
> âPeople now experience the entire world as a form of bullying. The helicopter parent protects the children from real dangers but also fantasy dangers. These precious snowflakes are the children of political correctness, their parents and schools lead them to believe that the world is perfectly moralistic â they donât live in the real world, it is a fantasy,â he said.
> ...


Sour, what do you think they mean by "fantasy dangers"?


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I think it was intended as condescending judgemental superior intellectual putdown. 

There are things that I perceive as very real dangers, that others perceive as "Tin-Foil Hat" foolishness. 



Laura Zone 5 said:


> Sour, what do you think they mean by "fantasy dangers"?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Itâs condescending to point out facts? You have an opportunity to show me where my arguments are wrong. Make a reasoned, informed rebuttal to anything Iâve said and I will be glad to learn more.

But if your âdangerâ canât be shown to have a basis in fact, then it *is* tin foil hat nonsense. Youâre frightened of something that isnât real. A fantasy danger. And when someone points this out to you, instead of vigorously defending your conclusions with actual data, you put your wrist to your forehead, holler âPolitical correctness! Political correctness!!â and proclaim youâve been condescended to and intellectually put down. Me, I donât consider learning new things a weakness. Some do, I guess.

Soâ¦ who canât learn new information because it makes them feel threatened? Who are the âspecial snowflakesâ who can hear only what they want to believe? Doesnât seem all that different from those overprotected college students who close their ears to anything except what they want to hear, does it?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED? YOU BETCHA

WASHINGTON â âRemember, itâs a rigged system. Itâs a rigged election,â said Donald Trump in New Hampshire on Saturday.

The stunned recoil in this city suggests this bunker buster went right down the chimney. As the French put it, âIl nây a que la verite qui blesse.â It is only the truth that hurts.

In what sense is the system rigged?

Consider Big Media â the elite columnists and commentators, the dominant national press, and the national and cable networks, save Fox. Not in this writerâs lifetime has there been such blanket hatred and hostility of a presidential candidate of a major party.

âSo what?â They reply. âWe have a free press!â

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/is-the-system-rigged-you-betcha/


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

And right over the edge this discussion goes. It's SAD that some people just can't be rational, but feel a need to bring the ravings of a lunatic into a discussion.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

It's a shame some people are closed minded and so opiniated that they can't see the Forest because of the Trees and are so offended that their own rational might be questioned, they resort to name calling and attempt to destroy anothers view.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Name calling?? You gotta be kidding. I know that everybody has a right to believe in whatever they want to. I guess, in some minds, that is "Everybody has a right to believe in what I want them to" Sorry, dude. Here, I got as much right to be rational as anyone else has to be irrational. 
But, if you want to think that grabbing women by the *****, calling black people "Uncle Tom" and discussing your own daughter as a "piece of ***" go right on and defend that. 
Along with the daily inducing of sedition and treason.

"attempt to destroy anothers view"?? Wow. Talk about your special snowflake..


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wolfie, I thought we were in Single Tree, not GC?
Must be slow in there........

Besides, isn't there a thread started "Hijack this thread" that most of these posts would be better suited for????


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Love ya!


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Wolfie, I thought we were in Single Tree, not GC?
> Must be slow in there........
> 
> Besides, isn't there a thread started "Hijack this thread" that most of these posts would be better suited for????


OK, I will get back on my Meds.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

BTW, you did know there was a room made especially for politics, right? And the moderators made it clear what went in there.although they've not followed their own rules. Ahh, well, I guess special snowflakes don't actually have to follow the rules, do they. Seeing as how I've got to go, I just want to point out that I was not the one who just couldn't live without bringing up "Trump"


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

RIght back atcha Wolfie!


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I'm not special and I don't think I'm a snowflake.. I know I'm not right in the head, does that count?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Baby, I AM special!! I hate winter so there is no way I am a snowflake.
My head is on straight...my eyes are good, and My God has blessed me with discerment.
(not spelling. lol)

It's a great day to be alive!!!


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

I have known that all along.. Baby.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Anybody ever watch that old western, _The Wild Bunch_? Remember the scene with a bunch of kids clustered around a little arena they built to watch a fight between a kajillion ants and this scorpion? It happens pretty early on in the movie. I popped that movie in the disc player a couple days ago. I don't even know why, exactly. It was like I was compelled or something. 

My copy isn't one of those digitally remastered ones or anything. It wasn't real easy to see, what with sun glare and blowing dust and what not. But, I swear I saw what looked like a younger version of Sourdough lurking near that bunch of kids. He had this kind of satisfied gleam about him. 

In my opinion, the moment those two unfortunate words, political and correct, were forced to give up some of their individuality and conjoin, as it were, into a single, overarching theme, they began to lose credibility. They've been used in combination for a long time. But, it's only in the latter part of the last 30 years or so that they've been forced to take the weight of social reform on their poor spindly backs. They have to stand for both a point of pride, and an object of derision. They've been connected to mean an acceptance of the status quo, or a clarion call for change. Both an agreement with a concept, and a distinctly polarizing force. 


Oh, and don't forget the always popular, 'tool used to deliberately foment contentious, often incendiary, argument. 


Credible? Ohhhkayyy.....


Now, if anyone wants to try to convince me that PC simply stands for a more respectful way to treat everyone else, that there's no agenda connected to it at all, and it's really nothing more than a modern interpretation of the golden rule, we may agree. Of course, you'd have to convince me that all the political baggage it comes with is only in my imagination. And, if you were able to convince me, I might actually take a side.



Every post I've written in this thread, except for my first and now my last, has deliberately been written to steer clear of taking a side for, or against, the right or left. In point of fact, I still haven't. I intentionally used what might be loosely termed a metaphorical concept to give my opinion of PC in my first post. The idea there was, 'Look at all these examples of people complaining about the way things are changing. It's nothing new, and for people to get their panties in a wad over a set of words whose biggest claim to fame is that they cause a metric ***** ton of fighting, is ridiculous.' That was as close as I could bring myself to an opinion because, in my opinion, the foundation (credibility) of the concept has been so distorted from the golden rule idea, that it's obvious to me no house will stand on it for long.


Ironically, that didn't stop people from assuming I was taking a side. Call it confirmation bias, or preconceived notions, or maybe even holding a grudge of some kind. Or maybe it had something to do with the way a single post of mine just happened to fall in the thread when I posted. I often compose my threads off site and then copy/paste, so sometimes other people have already posted a comment. Sometimes a post isn't absolutely clear as to the position it stands for, and when this happens it's not uncommon for a person to make a connection that doesn't really exist. It doesn't matter. 


PC should stand for Polarization Constant. It could even be described in terms of proportionality. As in directly proportional or inversely proportional. 


Something like this - One's stance relative to any given issue is directly proportional to the level of potential realized gain.


The bad news comes when inverse proportionality is applied to 'sociomath'.
- One's actual realized gain is inversely proportional to their perceived potential gain due to any given individual's ability to insulate themselves against undesirable consequences.


Yeah. Probably full of holes. And opinionated. But, that's what satire is, after all. Maybe PC should just be consigned to the dust bin of archaic and unused words and phrases. To take its place alongside eleemosynary, phenakism, antidisestablishmentarianism, or my favorite, blatherskite.


All people, everywhere, are special snowflakes.


----------



## Tommyice (Dec 5, 2010)

I tried to stay out as long as possible. The only thing I can add is...
.

.

Mangia



.



.

.

.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

new season of walking dead starts this week...not really a watcher..but i wanna see who lucille meets....its going to be a popcorn double real butter and a big ole ice cold cola to wash it down with moment...


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Is Lucille a people muncher? I've only watched it one time.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Is Lucille a people muncher? I've only watched it one time.


Mr. negan with lucille on his shoulder.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Ahh thanks Mister.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

This is the best time of year: Baseball playoffs. Beginning of hockey season, and football is 1/3 into the season.
The weather is turning, the smell of burning leaves is in the air......
Ahhhhhhhh life is good.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Well let me tell you about another good life down in the heart of the Ozarks... Lol pictures to follow after I'm at work to post them.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Hey...that's in the SHOW ME State, right?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

That it is.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Well let me tell you about another* good life down in the heart of the Ozarks... Lol pictures to follow *after I'm at work to post them.


Show me baby!!


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Ummm..you now I will. But where I am at I have to use my Cell to tether for Internet, but when I get to work I will load the Pic's and post them.

I am way down in the holler not far from the river..where two Hoot Owls were having an argument about something..they were Hooting over each other..lol


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

You two need to get together!


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

*****


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Let&#8217;s look at just how closely the supposed &#8220;4th Estate&#8221; is related, literally, to the government:

NBC Senior Deputy Political Editor Mark Murray is married to Obama appointee Sasha Johnson (who also worked for CNN), who is chief of staff at the FAA.

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama&#8217;s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and is an Advisor on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama&#8217;s Deputy Press Secretary

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama&#8217;s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton&#8217;s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

Associated but not related:

ABC News Anchor George Stephanopoulos, Clinton&#8217;s White House Communications Director and press secretary

PBS Chief of Staff Julie Anbender, Clinton&#8217;s Deputy Director of OPA and DOJ
Comcast-ABC Senior VP, Government Affairs Meredith Baker,
Bush&#8217;s and Obama&#8217;s Commissioner, FCC

CNN News correspondent, Yul Kwon, Obama&#8217;s Deputy Chief CGAB, FCC

PBS Host, Yul Kwon, Obama&#8217;s Deputy Chief CGAB, FCC

CNN Department Assignment Manager, Joe Lockhart, Clinton&#8217;s Press Secretary

CBS VP, Corporate Communications, Lisa Caputo, Clinton&#8217;s Press Secretary, First Lady&#8217;s Office.



We used to make fun of the Soviets for living in a government run propaganda state when I grew up in the 70s and 80s. Now, we&#8217;re the ones living behind a curtain.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

You (And many Others) are being "PLAYED" by them. You are doing and performing "Exactly" as they want you to behave. And in this way you actually enable and nurture their agenda.

They have "WON"........it is over, it is pointless to continue "Tilting at windmills".

There are things that people need to be concentrating on for the future. Your incessant obsession about this, only encourages others to be distracted from preparing for the future. Your flogging a mule that died several decades ago...........:bdh::bdh::bdh::bdh:
There is NO saving America at this point. Save yourselves, and your tribe.



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Let&#8217;s look at just how closely the supposed &#8220;4th Estate&#8221; is related, literally, to the government:


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

I agree, believe it or not. 

I mean, Think About It WWS! If it's important enough for Sourdough to risk leaving his faraday cage to tell you this, maybe you should listen, huh? 

Besides, your future ex paramour already liked you before you tried to hose down the whole sub-forum with testosterone. So what's the point of more? If you don't use what amount of it you got left wisely, something really bad just might happen. You could grow empathy.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

:yawn:


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

elkhound said:


> Mr. negan with lucille on his shoulder.


...and he didn't even bat an eye.

Or did he???


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

BRUTAL !!.... to dark for my viewing....flipped channel back to cartoons...lol


----------

