briar patch

[ohio jones]

regarding HK, i was referring to Conservative Mennonite, but i’m not sure that’s correct.

I believe Theological Conservative would be the proper classification on the Scott/Eby scale.

[temporal1]

regarding HK, i was referring to Conservative Mennonite, but i’m not sure that’s correct.

I believe Theological Conservative would be the proper classification on the Scott/Eby scale.

he seems to be in the neighborhood. maybe he’ll respond.

[HondurasKeiser]

would you use “cM” as is sometimes used on forum? or cA?
if you have a preference, if you’d prefer CM be removed, mods would probably take care of it.

No, I don't think that describes me but I don't need it to be removed from the thread title either.

[HondurasKeiser]

regarding HK, i was referring to Conservative Mennonite, but i’m not sure that’s correct.

I believe Theological Conservative would be the proper classification on the Scott/Eby scale.

That seems right.

[temporal1]

When people jump to talking about "black on black violence"
When that has nothing to do with the topic it sounds racist

Not saying anyone here is racist but it sounds very racist

you are groomed to think this way. i forgive you.

Let's face it, we are all constantly being groomed to think in various ways.

(it’s not that i’m deaf, or stupid.)

But you often seem to imply people who disagree with you are groomed, deaf, stupid, incapable of clear thought. I think you are merely echoing the sources from which you get your news. It's a cheap way of disarming a fact-based discussion.

If we want to do better than be useful idiots to whichever faction we feel most loyal to, we need to make room for reasonable, fact-based discussion, listening to a range of opinions without attacking the people. Let's make it a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.

i did respond to this in the Briar Patch. i’ll add another response.

Just recently, i posted this, regarding “who i follow” -
and, these i follow closely, because of their commitment to Truth, as Jesus Christ offers.
Page 38:

i do not consider CNN or PV (i’ve never viewed PV) mainstream, but, regarding the mainstream,
i see 2 responses from the overall majority:

1. Those who respect and believe,
2. Those who WISH they could respect and believe.

for myself, i follow appleman, Honduras Keiser, mike, RZehr, Robert, Josh, oj, even crazy PeterG, Grace, Valerie, justme, and others, far more than any professional source. i’m all but unplugged - EXCEPT, what i’m exposed to as i navigate the internet for other interests, and what is dragged+dropped here. which amounts to ‘way more than enough.

i don’t put much difference between CNN, PV, NYT, WSJ, etc.

i don’t get a sense Jesus will be splitting hairs on it.

boot, you’ve been a dedicated political news hound from childhood, raised in a politically-interested and active family.
from what you’ve described over years. were you captain of your hs debate team, or just trying to be ever since?

when you make statements like these, presuming others are either in your camp, or equally invested in “the other camp,”
it reflects you can’t imagine any other way of being. especially if a person happens to come to conclusions that do not align with yours. as long as there is alignment with you - everything is good, and “normal.”

boot, you are flat-out mistaken.
it’s entirely possible to come to solid common sense conclusions - in spite of mainstream media propaganda.
if anything, that would be my experience. by comparison, i’ve hardly listened/viewed anything else in my life.

i know why i visit this forum. i named some usernames above.

it’s not to learn about the mainstream - which is almost impossible to avoid.
yet, here on this forum are members who apparently can’t stand anyone think differently, and are present to inform the unwashed masses.

i believe my posts consistently reflect quotes from forum members i appreciate+value.
this reflects “who i follow” and i’m happy to have the opportunity this forum presents.

aside from that, when i add news links, they are mixed, not representative of any particular group, i do not belong to any group. never have. i share TOPICS of interest. many i’ve only noticed one time. a few, like Herman Cain, i enjoyed over years. NONE have been “have to have.” i don’t do that.

[temporal1]

When people jump to talking about "black on black violence"
When that has nothing to do with the topic it sounds racist

Not saying anyone here is racist but it sounds very racist

you are groomed to think this way. i forgive you.

Let's face it, we are all constantly being groomed to think in various ways.

(it’s not that i’m deaf, or stupid.)

But you often seem to imply people who disagree with you are groomed, deaf, stupid, incapable of clear thought. I think you are merely echoing the sources from which you get your news. It's a cheap way of disarming a fact-based discussion.

If we want to do better than be useful idiots to whichever faction we feel most loyal to, we need to make room for reasonable, fact-based discussion, listening to a range of opinions without attacking the people. Let's make it a race to the top, not a race to the bottom.

boot,
Not to mention, but my post was to Kris Kramer. Then you went off on this emotional tirade against me.

possibly, in future, i’ll just flag your miserable comments to mods, rather than attempting to address you as an adult man capable of responding for himself.

no one wants to read it. and i don’t blame them.

[temporal1]

it’s entirely possible to come to solid common sense conclusions - in spite of mainstream media propaganda.

I agree. But it requires actually putting the focus on facts. Long emotional diatribes about who you like and who you don't like and what's wrong with who build on themselves and take the energy in an entirely different direction. That's what propaganda is made of.

In this thread, can we focus on how you can identify facts without respect to political factions? That seems hard to do. Shouting "mainstream media propaganda" at facts without looking at the evidence doesn't help. It merely identifies the political faction you identify with.

i haven’t posted a lot in this thread. i don’t think so, anyway.
this recent activity is mostly between you and Robert .. as is common.

you made a presumption about who i follow - 2 days ago, i added a short post about “who i follow.”
it was pertinent to point it out in response to your personal attack.

i won’t apologize for saying i frequent this forum for the valuable input i find here, included in every topic.

i will defer to OP Signtist for topic management.
you can have all the visions+goals you want everywhere you want. not all will jump on your bandwagon.

you refer to political factions more than any. often when you sense your points are not carrying water.

i think Robert “had the nerve” to suggest CNN isn’t credible. Page 36? ..

you can’t win with him so you go after me. my view is not believing any of them. i’m the bad guy.

OP, Page 1

A positive spin on T1's thread.
What are your favourite news sources?
(Yes I just spelled it that way. Don't care if spell check thinks it's wrong!)

Which are most likely to present unbiased news?
I think if someone wants to make billions in the USA right now they ought to start a news agency where those writing/reporting get fired if someone can tell which way their bias runs. I think it would be wildly popular.

In Canada the CBC is notoriously liberal, Sun Media (which some claim is nothing more than a tabloid) can be surprisingly conservative editorially speaking. Macleans seems to be equal opportunity.

This looks just like an invitation to informal discussion to me.

[temporal1]

i think Robert “had the nerve” to suggest CNN isn’t credible. Page 36? ..

I didn't say anything like that. I did say this about CNN:

Regardless, neither Fox nor CNN are reliable enough to trust without verification.

I think I gave evidence for my view. Check out the link. And I used a fact checker that Robert had also used. Happy to discuss the things that I am actually saying about the topic of this thread. Or not. Your choice. But no, CNN is not a source that I would normally trust without verification. And I rarely see it unless someone posts something from CNN here.

ok.
too bad you decided to pick up on an otherwise pretty good post directed to K Kramer.
my post wasn’t exactly on topic. you took it ‘way out.

the elephant in the living room is a pretty important matter for many of us in this world.
Page 40.

When people jump to talking about "black on black violence"
When that has nothing to do with the topic it sounds racist

Not saying anyone here is racist but it sounds very racist

you are groomed to think this way. i forgive you.

i understand many words are deemed politically incorrect. (it’s not that i’m deaf, or stupid.)

i think it’s a mistake to ignore the elephant in the living room;
esp because certain political people stand to gain while multitudes are suffering horrifying losses - ignored.

i’m pretty much on the bottom along with the sufferers. we don’t like the double talk. we don’t want to think about being shot going out for groceries in daylight. or driving down the highway.

real people want real improvements. not empty platitudes.

i have a huge heart for this. people are suffering. it may rank with abortion in significance, in my view. wasted life.
while politicians+media ignore it, as if they did not exist. tragic. i don’t want to be a statistic, but i might be.

[Josh]

[temporal1]

you couldn’t find a dumpster fire?