Kaschoggi murder

[idhawkman]

I'm going to try to refrain from any caustic, inflammatory characterizations, but even if your idea were to pass Congress and survive an almost certain court challenge, that's simply not a viable, workable suggestion. Do you think that thousands of dreamers are going to flock to those government schools and voluntarily sign up for something like that? Or do you intend on arresting, incarcerating, and forcing a curriculum upon them?

Maybe you should ask yourself why that is. They are not asylum seekers, they are seeking economic benefits. So why wouldn't they want to be the "upper class" in their own country where they have extended family? Or are they only interested in leaching off the US instead of making their home better? That's what has made the US so great. Adventurers who came here to explore their own limits, that is not what these folks want because if they did, they'd seek the challenge of their own country.

And is it just the Hispanics you are worried about, or are you going to have a program to teach native languages for those who hail from Vietnam, China, the Philippines, et al? There's over 1 million illegal immigrants from Asia alone, and that's before you consider those from eastern Europe and Africa. And are you going to find all those people jobs in their home countries? Your proposal is laughable.

NOPE, anyone who is DACA. That's what we are talking about here. Asylum and refugees are not part of the discussion. So if there are DACA kids from other countries here, then yes, I'm advocating the same thing for them. Before you think the proposal is laughable, you need to learn more about how the US forces its influence abroad because yes, we could definitely find them jobs anywhere in the world and even more in Asia.

If you're serious about helping the economies of countries like Mexico, then how about we establish a liberal trading relationship with them even if it is not monetarily advantageous to the USA? Help them create jobs in their own homelands and reduce the incentive for them to immigrate to this country. I'd rather use that tactic to reduce demand than throw money into a multi billion dollar, bottomless pit government project to build a border wall.

Is this response a joke? It has to be a joke by you, right? What the hell do you think NAFTA was? The problem is that they still didn't want to stay in their country and flocked here. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly the welfare system here that 70% of them use after being here 10+ years? Kind of makes you say hmmmm, doesn't it?

[RiverDog]

Maybe you should ask yourself why that is. They are not asylum seekers, they are seeking economic benefits. So why wouldn't they want to be the "upper class" in their own country where they have extended family? Or are they only interested in leaching off the US instead of making their home better? That's what has made the US so great. Adventurers who came here to explore their own limits, that is not what these folks want because if they did, they'd seek the challenge of their own country.

Whether you like it or not, their "home" and therefore their "country" has become the USA. If they want to return to their birthplace and make it better, then good on them. But if they obey the law, stay in school, get a job, then 87% of Americans say that they should be protected. If you disagree, it puts you WAYY out on the fringe of our society. You can't get 87% of respondents to agree on the time of day.

NOPE, anyone who is DACA. That's what we are talking about here. Asylum and refugees are not part of the discussion. So if there are DACA kids from other countries here, then yes, I'm advocating the same thing for them. Before you think the proposal is laughable, you need to learn more about how the US forces its influence abroad because yes, we could definitely find them jobs anywhere in the world and even more in Asia.

You didn't answer my question: Do you think that these kids are going to voluntarily flock to these government-run schools or do you propose to have ICE or some other LE agency round them up and incarcerate them then force your agenda on them? Do you have any idea how expensive a program like that would be?

If you're serious about helping the economies of countries like Mexico, then how about we establish a liberal trading relonship with them even if it is not monetarily advantageous to the USA? Help them create jobs in their own homelands and reduce the incentive for them to immigrate to this country. I'd rather use that tactic to reduce demand than throw money into a multi billion dollar, bottomless pit government project to build a border wall.

Is this response a joke? It has to be a joke by you, right? What the hell do you think NAFTA was? The problem is that they still didn't want to stay in their country and flocked here. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly the welfare system here that 70% of them use after being here 10+ years? Kind of makes you say hmmmm, doesn't it?

Naw, you have the corner on comedy in this thread.

Judging by your response, I guess you are not serious about helping Mexico build their economy. Your proposal is laughable. Even Trump disagrees with your Draconian ideas.

[c_hawkbob]

The bible says that the sins of the father will be revisited on the family for 7 generations.

No it doesn't, the passage is "even to the third and fourth generation", you don't add the two. But quoting the bible to make a political point is silly, Deuteronomy 24:16 says "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

The bible contradicts itself more than even Trump does.

I do believe what would be best for all is to send them back home so they can make their cultural home a better place for their Whole Family and not just the law breakers who brought them here

Yeah OK, why not let's give everyone in the country a DNA test and if the have no Native American blood in them send them all back to their countries of origin? Really protect the homeland. It'd be better than an arbitrary line in the sand like "born here! ... but not this generation"

[Hawktawk]

[quote="idhawkman"

"1. The bible says that the sins of the father will be revisited on the family for 7 generations. Although the "fault" may not lie with the DACA kid themself, it doesn't mean that their problem has to become my and millions of other American's problem. We do lots of outreach programs to help foreigners come here and learn in our universities and then go home to make their world better. So a better solution would be to retrain them to re-integrate them back into their country. This would be beneficial to them, their home country and us in the US. Any other solution leaves someone out in the cold."

Oh now we're quoting the bible GREAT!!!!! As a Christian, a former pastoral major who has preached from the pulpit and has read the bible cover to cover several times Ill inform you that there's a few other passages you've forgotten. Its easy to cherry pick the bible trying to make a point.

How about this "Of they who have been granted much will much be required". This immigrant nation has been granted quite a bit. Or how about"inasmuch as you have done it for the very least of my brethren you've done it unto me" Or how about "suffer the children and do not prevent them from coming to me for as such is the kingdom of heaven". how about "the greatest commandment is love". How about the story of the good samaritan, a man of a different race and religion who helped a man beaten and left for dead on the roadside?How about the beatitudes? Better brush up on your reading before rolling out that weak argument.

Let me tell you something Id Hawkman. I used to hear WWJD. What would Jesus do? Im convinced in my heart he wouldn not be a trump man, especially with a true born again christian and devout family man named Mike Pence waiting in the wings. The evangelical community that used to be my home fawning over this feckless morally bankrupt lunatic is the most nauseating part of this sorry spectacle. Lots of Trump supporters will burn in hell if they don't fall on their face and repent. he's pretty much certainly gonna burn hotter than Charles Manson because he will never repent. He never does anything wrong, just ask him

[RiverDog]

The bible says that the sins of the father will be revisited on the family for 7 generations.

No it doesn't, the passage is "even to the third and fourth generation", you don't add the two. But quoting the bible to make a political point is silly, Deuteronomy 24:16 says "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

The bible contradicts itself more than even Trump does.

I do believe what would be best for all is to send them back home so they can make their cultural home a better place for their Whole Family and not just the law breakers who brought them here

Yeah OK, why not let's give everyone in the country a DNA test and if the have no Native American blood in them send them all back to their countries of origin? Really protect the homeland. It'd be better than an arbitrary line in the sand like "born here! ... but not this generation"

Better yet, let's let him have his 7 generations, figure out who arrived here illegally, then round up all of their decedents and ship them back to their home countries. Why stop at just one generation when the Bible, according to Idahawk, says we should be going back 7?

That was the goofiest rationalization I've ever heard for justifying an action that not a single one of 535 legislators or the POTUS wouldn't dare to even suggest as a "think outside the box" solution.

[idhawkman]

Whether you like it or not, their "home" and therefore their "country" has become the USA. If they want to return to their birthplace and make it better, then good on them. But if they obey the law, stay in school, get a job, then 87% of Americans say that they should be protected. If you disagree, it puts you WAYY out on the fringe of our society. You can't get 87% of respondents to agree on the time of day.

No matter how much you "want it" to be true, it simply isn't their country. Not until they are citizens and by the way, if they are so eager to be Americans why do they still fly their country flag? They need to go back home where their pride can be fully realized no matter how much you want to coddle them.

You didn't answer my question: Do you think that these kids are going to voluntarily flock to these government-run schools or do you propose to have ICE or some other LE agency round them up and incarcerate them then force your agenda on them? Do you have any idea how expensive a program like that would be?

Faced with the alternative of being illegal and deported without the education and assistance, yes, they will flock to it. Also, if the jobs for these folks are dried up, they will flock to these solutions. Last, yes, it will be cheaper than the $135Billion we are spending on them now.

Naw, you have the corner on comedy in this thread.

Judging by your response, I guess you are not serious about helping Mexico build their economy. Your proposal is laughable. Even Trump disagrees with your Draconian ideas.

Yep, he disagrees because he got rid of the draconian NAFTA agreement making it less likely to help Mexico with disadvantaging the US. If you don't think the end game is to get rid of DACA and all illegals or work a deal with the dems then you are sadly mistaken and you are wayyy outside the norm. 63% of Americans want a solution to the immigration situation. So either the dems come to the table or it will be very draconian for the illegals when Trump fully enforces the laws that Bill Clinton signed into law. Their choice.

[idhawkman]

The bible contradicts itself more than even Trump does.

This is a true statement.

Yeah OK, why not let's give everyone in the country a DNA test and if the have no Native American blood in them send them all back to their countries of origin? Really protect the homeland. It'd be better than an arbitrary line in the sand like "born here! ... but not this generation"

C'mon bob, stay with the conversation here. I know you know we are talking about illegals and not legal immigrants which I have no problem with at all no matter what race, color, creed, etc.

By the way in case you didn't know, Vikings (e.g. Norse) people have been proven to be in North America before the native indians. Very little people know this though and its not a huge point to argue since its not germaine to whether people are here legally or illegally.

[Hawktawk]

Boy has this Khashoggi thread gone sideways Part of what I love about the forum. But in other news several undocumented immigrants working at Trump national have come forward alleging that their false papers were provided by an employee of the club. More hypocrisy if verified but it isn't the first time a politician has evaded rules they impose. Do as I say not as I do.

[idhawkman]

Oh now we're quoting the bible GREAT!!!!! As a Christian, a former pastoral major who has preached from the pulpit and has read the bible cover to cover several times Ill inform you that there's a few other passages you've forgotten. Its easy to cherry pick the bible trying to make a point.

How about this "Of they who have been granted much will much be required". This immigrant nation has been granted quite a bit. Or how about"inasmuch as you have done it for the very least of my brethren you've done it unto me" Or how about "suffer the children and do not prevent them from coming to me for as such is the kingdom of heaven". how about "the greatest commandment is love". How about the story of the good samaritan, a man of a different race and religion who helped a man beaten and left for dead on the roadside?How about the beatitudes? Better brush up on your reading before rolling out that weak argument.

Nope, you just have a very weird view of what true love is for people from another country then I do. I think it is much more endearing to help them in their current home then to subject them to life threatening journey's across deserts subjecting them to rape and murder when they could be helped right where they are. Additionally, remember that a parasite that kills its host can no longer survive. I'd rather have the abiltiy to help the world help itself than to try and allow 100s of millions of people to come here and try to sustain them when we all know that can't happen. Do a little sole searching and ask youself if you really think attracting more and more people here is the right thing to do for not only them but for your current neighbors.

Let me tell you something Id Hawkman. I used to hear WWJD. What would Jesus do? Im convinced in my heart he wouldn not be a trump man, especially with a true born again christian and devout family man named Mike Pence waiting in the wings. The evangelical community that used to be my home fawning over this feckless morally bankrupt lunatic is the most nauseating part of this sorry spectacle. Lots of Trump supporters will burn in hell if they don't fall on their face and repent. he's pretty much certainly gonna burn hotter than Charles Manson because he will never repent. He never does anything wrong, just ask him

Save your preaching for those that will follow you. I'm not that person.

[idhawkman]

That was the goofiest rationalization I've ever heard for justifying an action that not a single one of 535 legislators or the POTUS wouldn't dare to even suggest as a "think outside the box" solution.

yeah, I can see why you are confused when you take it out of context. The context is that the sins of their fathers and mothers does not obligate me to their problems.

[idhawkman]

Boy has this Khashoggi thread gone sideways Part of what I love about the forum. But in other news several undocumented immigrants working at Trump national have come forward alleging that their false papers were provided by an employee of the club. More hypocrisy if verified but it isn't the first time a politician has evaded rules they impose. Do as I say not as I do.

Wait, so let me get this straight. You want to punish Trump because an employee of his was giving false documents to other people? If one of his employees commits murder does that make him guilty of murder in your demented world?

His company did the proper checks on the documents before hiring them. If they are forged and the company finds out, then they need to take action but what you are suggesting is just ludicrous.

[RiverDog]

yeah, I can see why you are confused when you take it out of context. The context is that the sins of their fathers and mothers does not obligate me to their problems.

Yea, well whatever. Believe what you want and use whatever means you need to justify it. I'd just caution you about adapting a POV that is shared by such a small percentage of the population that there's not much daylight between you and a very undesirable segment of our society. Like my old man used to say: If you're going to sleep with the dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas.

[idhawkman]

Yea, well whatever. Believe what you want and use whatever means you need to justify it. I'd just caution you about adapting a POV that is shared by such a small percentage of the population that there's not much daylight between you and a very undesirable segment of our society. Like my old man used to say: If you're going to sleep with the dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas.

Yeah right. 63% of the population wanting immigration reform is "Such a Small Percentage of the Population."... Got it.

[RiverDog]

Yeah right. 63% of the population wanting immigration reform is "Such a Small Percentage of the Population."... Got it.

No, you don't "get it". I'm talking about the 87% of the population that feels that the dreamers should be allowed to stay in the country, not deported as you apparently believe:

Poll: Nearly 9 in 10 want DACA recipients to stay in US

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... ts-to-stay

That leaves 13% that don't, very close to the 9% of the population that think it's OK to harbor views exposed by white supremacists:

1 in 10 say it's acceptable to hold neo-Nazi views

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/28-appr ... d=49334079

Unless you want to contest the accuracy of those polls, and granted, there are a lot of them but they all show a very large majority in favor of the dreamers, that places you in some pretty unsavory company, and I'm asking you as a friend to take that information to heart and reconsider your opinion.

[burrrton]

1 in 10 say it's acceptable to hold neo-Nazi views

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/28-appr ... d=49334079

How many of those responding in the affirmative were doing so because they don't believe in policing people's thoughts?

I don't think it matters to your and ID's argument, but that's a perfect example of a poll designed to illicit a desired response.

[RiverDog]

How many of those responding in the affirmative were doing so because they don't believe in policing people's thoughts?

I don't think it matters to your and ID's argument, but that's a perfect example of a poll designed to illicit a desired response.

There's a link in the article that takes you to a PDF file showing the poll questions and the specific responses. Here's one of the questions asked and the responses:

Thinking now about the movement (Neo Nazi white supremacist) known as the alt-right, or alternative right. Would you describe yourself as a (supporter) or as an (opponent) of the alt-right movement? Do you support/oppose it strongly, or somewhat?

That particular result was 4% strongly agree and 6% somewhat agree, or a combined 10%.

I'm not claiming that the poll is necessarily accurate. My point is that holding a POV that the dreamers should be deported is getting close to the same neighborhood as those that are OK with the views held by white supremacists. Knowing how much Idahawk detests white supremacists (no sarcasm whatsoever), I'm hoping that he'll take that information to heart and rethink his stance.

[burrrton]

Thinking now about the movement (Neo Nazi white supremacist) known as the alt-right, or alternative right. Would you describe yourself as a (supporter) or as an (opponent) of the alt-right movement? Do you support/oppose it strongly, or somewhat?

Ah- that's much different than how they characterized it in the graphs/summary (which I assumed were the poll questions).

Gotcha.

[idhawkman]

[quote="burrrton"
How many of those responding in the affirmative were doing so because they don't believe in policing people's thoughts?

I don't think it matters to your and ID's argument, but that's a perfect example of a poll designed to illicit a desired response.[/quote]
Thats true about almost every poll, right? It also doesn't take into account those who actually didn't want to answer the question because it isn't PC. Radio active issues all have a certain amount of non-participants that just don't want to let their true thoughts be known.

River, if we don't legalize them, they must go back. So even though you want to paint me as a white supremacist, the fact remains that if we are a nation of laws we must follow the laws. If we don't want to follow the laws then change them. If you don't have the political balls (not you specificall but the congressmen you elect) to stand up and change the laws then get out of politics. I find it quite rich for people to think of me as a white supremacist, racist or any other lable just because I want to have out laws followed.

[RiverDog]

Ah- that's much different than how they characterized it in the graphs/summary (which I assumed were the poll questions).

Gotcha.

Although it doesn't alter my point, I want my statement to be accurate. I might have gotten part of my earlier response wrong as I assumed that the "alt-right," or Alternative Right" and "white supremacist" was one and the same, and apparently there is a distinction. So here's Question #7 in the survey and its results:

Do you yourself think it’s acceptable or unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views? Do you feel that way strongly, or somewhat?

Acceptable: 3% Strongly, 5% Somewhat, Net 9%

Unacceptable: 72% Strongly, 11% Somewhat, Net 83%

No Opinion: 8%

[idhawkman]

There's a link in the article that takes you to a PDF file showing the poll questions and the specific responses. Here's one of the questions asked and the responses:

Thinking now about the movement (Neo Nazi white supremacist) known as the alt-right, or alternative right. Would you describe yourself as a (supporter) or as an (opponent) of the alt-right movement? Do you support/oppose it strongly, or somewhat?

That particular result was 4% strongly agree and 6% somewhat agree, or a combined 10%.

I'm not claiming that the poll is necessarily accurate. My point is that holding a POV that the dreamers should be deported is getting close to the same neighborhood as those that are OK with the views held by white supremacists. Knowing how much Idahawk detests white supremacists (no sarcasm whatsoever), I'm hoping that he'll take that information to heart and rethink his stance.

Perfect example of a tainted question. Why did they have to throw in Nazi? Why are there only 2 answers? Why didn't they ask if they had the right to have the thoughts they have as long as it didn't infringe on other citizen's rights? Who makes them the thought police? You get the idea.

You are right though. I don't like the white supremacist at all. They give white people a bad name. That said, I will defend their right to their thoughts just as much as I defend Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to sow hate in their community. Frankly, I don't really care what most people "THINK". What I care about is whether their actions are lawful and if their actions infringe on someone else's rights. Period.

[RiverDog]

How many of those responding in the affirmative were doing so because they don't believe in policing people's thoughts?

I don't think it matters to your and ID's argument, but that's a perfect example of a poll designed to illicit a desired response.

Thats true about almost every poll, right? It also doesn't take into account those who actually didn't want to answer the question because it isn't PC. Radio active issues all have a certain amount of non-participants that just don't want to let their true thoughts be known.

True. I'll also note that there may be a certain type of person that responds to pollsters. I, for one, don't accept any unsolicited phone calls, and I'm not alone. One of the problems that pollsters are having is the willingness of respondents to answer questions. Back in the 50's, everyone answered the phone and willingly answered questions. Like I said, I never claimed it to be completely accurate.

River, if we don't legalize them, they must go back.

That's part of the program, ie to give them a pathway to citizenship. Once they are admitted to the program, they are "legalized", as you put it.

So even though you want to paint me as a white supremacist....

I'm not trying to paint you as a white supremacist, for crying out loud! I went way out of my way to make sure that you didn't get that impression.

If you can assume that around 10% of Americans are OK with white supremacy and consider the likelihood that all of those folks would also agree that the dreamers should be deported, that puts the number of those that are not white supremacists yet agree with deportation at just a couple of percentage points. That's probably where you fall as I have no reason to suspect that you're a white supremacist.

However, it is a position that if I were in that I'd feel very uncomfortable with.

[RiverDog]

There's a link in the article that takes you to a PDF file showing the poll questions and the specific responses. Here's one of the questions asked and the responses:

Thinking now about the movement (Neo Nazi white supremacist) known as the alt-right, or alternative right. Would you describe yourself as a (supporter) or as an (opponent) of the alt-right movement? Do you support/oppose it strongly, or somewhat?

That particular result was 4% strongly agree and 6% somewhat agree, or a combined 10%.

I'm not claiming that the poll is necessarily accurate. My point is that holding a POV that the dreamers should be deported is getting close to the same neighborhood as those that are OK with the views held by white supremacists. Knowing how much Idahawk detests white supremacists (no sarcasm whatsoever), I'm hoping that he'll take that information to heart and rethink his stance.

Perfect example of a tainted question. Why did they have to throw in Nazi? Why are there only 2 answers? Why didn't they ask if they had the right to have the thoughts they have as long as it didn't infringe on other citizen's rights? Who makes them the thought police? You get the idea.

They had 5 possible answers: Strongly agree, somewhat agree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, and no opinion.

Read the poll questions and responses starting at the bottom of P. 4 of the following link:

https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... sville.pdf

[burrrton]

Thats true about almost every poll, right? It also doesn't take into account those who actually didn't want to answer the question because it isn't PC. Radio active issues all have a certain amount of non-participants that just don't want to let their true thoughts be known.

Um, true, but that's not really what I was saying. I was only saying that a well-designed poll is careful not to elicit answers for questions they're not asking (and well-designed polls are rare these days).

As you allude to in one of your posts here, that question could easily be interpreted as asking if the responder felt 'thought policing' was acceptable.

I hate racists as much as anyone, but the libertarian in me says it's not my place to tell you what you can and can't think.

[edit]

Just read down that PDF- totally misleading question:

"Do you yourself think it’s acceptable or unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views?"

[RiverDog]

Thats true about almost every poll, right? It also doesn't take into account those who actually didn't want to answer the question because it isn't PC. Radio active issues all have a certain amount of non-participants that just don't want to let their true thoughts be known.

Um, true, but that's not really what I was saying. I was only saying that a well-designed poll is careful not to elicit answers for questions they're not asking (and well-designed polls are rare these days).

As you allude to in one of your posts here, that question could easily be interpreted as asking if the responder felt 'thought policing' was acceptable.

As I said before, I am not claiming that either of these polls, which includes the one on the number of people supporting DACA, are an accurate gauge. But it does give a ball park idea of what kinds of opinions are mainstream and which ones are on the fringe, and many of us use some polls to form, change, and/or justify our opinions. For example, I do not object to the "Redskins" moniker mostly because all the polling data I've ever seen shows that a definite majority of Native Americans are not offended by it. If it were even close to 50/50, I'd probably come down on the other side of the debate.

I hate racists as much as anyone, but the libertarian in me says it's not my place to tell you what you can and can't think.

[edit]

Just read down that PDF- totally misleading question:

"Do you yourself think it’s acceptable or unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views?"

I put the two polls out there to provoke some thought. We all have this tendency to think of ourselves as mainstream, average, normal, etc, and there are times that a slap in the face is needed. As I noted above, I have used information like this to shape my own thoughts on matters, particularly social ones. The polls were not intended to label anyone or attempt to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be thinking.

[idhawkman]

Thats true about almost every poll, right? It also doesn't take into account those who actually didn't want to answer the question because it isn't PC. Radio active issues all have a certain amount of non-participants that just don't want to let their true thoughts be known.

Um, true, but that's not really what I was saying. I was only saying that a well-designed poll is careful not to elicit answers for questions they're not asking (and well-designed polls are rare these days).

As you allude to in one of your posts here, that question could easily be interpreted as asking if the responder felt 'thought policing' was acceptable.

As I said before, I am not claiming that either of these polls, which includes the one on the number of people supporting DACA, are an accurate gauge. But it does give a ball park idea of what kinds of opinions are mainstream and which ones are on the fringe, and many of us use some polls to form, change, and/or justify our opinions.

I'm not sure I could disagree with this any more than I do- is there an eleven (minus) on the dial for this sentiment? Polls should never form opinion, validate opinion or guage one's opinion. That said, pollsters know that it in fact does do this for a certain segment of the populace. That's why they put out such outrageous polls months before an election just to tighten them up to the real numbers days before the election. This is not a new phenomenon though, these same people who form their opinions for polls are the ones that would join a lynch mob back in the wild west days just to go along with everyone else's opinions. Its also why a major part of marketing any product is "Social proof." e.g. reviews, numbers sold, etc.

For example, I do not object to the "Redskins" moniker mostly because all the polling data I've ever seen shows that a definite majority of Native Americans are not offended by it. If it were even close to 50/50, I'd probably come down on the other side of the debate.

And your opinion would be swayed by what? The opinion of 1,000 interviewed?

I hate racists as much as anyone, but the libertarian in me says it's not my place to tell you what you can and can't think.

[edit]

Just read down that PDF- totally misleading question:

"Do you yourself think it’s acceptable or unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views?"

I put the two polls out there to provoke some thought. We all have this tendency to think of ourselves as mainstream, average, normal, etc, and there are times that a slap in the face is needed. As I noted above, I have used information like this to shape my own thoughts on matters, particularly social ones. The polls were not intended to label anyone or attempt to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't be thinking.

This actually surprises me about you River. I'd just caution what you let yourself listen to as the saying goes, "every converation is a sales pitch. Either they sell you on their idea or you sell them on yours." Since all media is one way, they are not listening to your side but just constantly bombarding you with theirs. I have never been a follower like that though. Maybe it is my upbringing by my Retired Ranger father or my experience in Special Ops myself that has always made me the OOTB thinker and leader.