I will stay away from the political stuff. But would like to add that in my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to be more logical. And, in general, liberal folks tend to be more emotional.
I think it depends on the issue. On some issues conservatives tend to be more emotional, while on other issues liberals tend to be more emotional. But, as a general rule, I would agree that conservatives tend to be more logical and analytical than do liberals.
I will stay away from the political stuff. But would like to add that in my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to be more logical. And, in general, liberal folks tend to be more emotional.
I think it depends on the issue. On some issues conservatives tend to be more emotional, while on other issues liberals tend to be more emotional. But, as a general rule, I would agree that conservatives tend to be more logical and analytical than do liberals.
I will stay away from the political stuff. But would like to add that in my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to be more logical. And, in general, liberal folks tend to be more emotional.
In my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to accept the word of authority more readily than liberal folks do.
Why do you think that is the case?
Why do you think conservatives are more logical?
One of the most intelligent persons that I have ever known told me so almost 50-years ago. And, since then, I have found from my own experiences that it is true (in general).
You do, of course, realise how illogical this answer is?
Unless the logic was to avoid the point I made about how conservative folks tend to blindly accept authority.
I made an addendum to that post while you were responding. And why do you think the first response is illogical?A simplified version of our exchange:
A simplified version of our exchange:
Question: What makes you think conservatives are more logical?
Answer: Because someone told me so.
Your answer, whatever way you look at it, is purely subjective. There is no element of your answer that is not subjective.
Logic is not subjective.
Therefore, your answer to my question is illogical.
Now that's logic!
Here's a little questionnaire to emphasise my point about conservatives and how they represent the authority in question.
1) In 1963 are the FBI to be considered conservative or liberal?
2) In 1963 are the DPD to be considered conservative or liberal?
3) In 1964 is the Warren Commision to be considered conservative or liberal?
If the answer to the all above questions is "conservative" even you must recognise a certain pattern is emerging.
A simplified version of our exchange:
Question: What makes you think conservatives are more logical?
Answer: Because someone told me so.
I believe that you left out the second part of my answer. Your “simplification” is incomplete and dishonest.
If you cannot answer the question logically just say so. Don’t pull the crap that you just tried. It makes you look ridiculous.
Are conservatives more logical than liberals?
Just ask this question - Can a man get pregnant?
What are conservatives saying on this issue and what are liberals saying?
Are conservatives more logical than liberals?
Just ask this question - Can a man get pregnant?
What are conservatives saying on this issue and what are liberals saying?
Why So Many Leftists Reject the WC Because One of Their Own Killed Kennedy
Too many conspiracy advocates--nearly all of them--call the Vietnam War "dishonorable," "unwinnable," "unnecessary," etc., when in fact the war was an honorable and winnable war whose goal was to keep 18 million people from falling under communist tyranny....One poster cautioned about painting an idea with a broad brush.
In 2014, Llewellyn King of the Huffington Post toured Vietnam and interviewed its people. The Vietnamese had little interest in talking about the war. “They wanted to know three things,” said King, “…how could they get American goods, how could they sell their goods in the U.S. market, and what was the United States going to do about China?” Vietnam loves the U.S. because it wants to enrich its people, with the same methods America used, to become an economic superpower.https://borgenproject.org/why-vietnam-loves-the-us/
According to globals surveys, the Vietnamese people consistently rank among the most pro-American in the World (Pew Research from 2017, the latest data for Vietnam).https://vietnamdaily.ca/culture/what-do-vietnamese-think-about-america-2022/
However, you may think the opposite was true by the conspicuous lack of Americans among the Western tourists in Tay Ho or the Old Quarter of Hanoi, most of whom are from Europe, Australia or Canada rather than the USA. Many young Americans stay away from Vietnam; their insecurities revealed by the sheepish question they often ask us: “Do they hate us in Vietnam?”
Is this insecurity justified: do Vietnamese people resent Amercians? The answer is a resounding no.
As it was with Japan...Vietnam has become the better country after all is said and done.
1) By necessity a "simplification" is incomplete.
2) The simplification I presented does include the second part of your answer.
3) I did answer your question logically.
4) It's you who looks ridiculous, crying like a baby because you don't like what you hear.
PS: You didn't answer the questionnaire.
Why So Many Leftists Reject the WC Because One of Their Own Killed KennedyThat would not have been "a leftest" Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was a Dixiecrat [Southern conservative]
As a conservative Independent,
allow me to explain why so many conservatives either accept the Warren Commission's claims or just don't care about the case:
In my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to accept the word of authority more readily than liberal folks do.
Here's a fellow who's to the extreme right of most American conservatives. Yet he's an "Independent." Next he'll be telling us he's a "Skeptic" rather than a JFK conspiracy theorist.
The LNers don't proclaim the WR as if it's Gospel. Whether Right or Left, LNers follow the evidence if it's better
The distinction is not difficult. It you have a conspiracy theory, then you are a conspiracy theorist. If you question unsubstantiated claims made by pundits or authority figures, then you’re a skeptic.
LNers believe whatever is necessary to keep their myth alive.
Just for the fun of it, let's just briefly consider another case. Let's consider the OJ Simpson case. Conservatives and libs alike here - what are your thoughts on the OJ case? Did the prosecutor or defense get it right? Was the jury correct in acquitting him? And whatever your response is, why do you think so?
One can equality be a nonpartisan skeptic when questioning what is for the most part the crackpot absurdity of JFK conspiracy theorists.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. LNers are a dangerous monolithic lot to be painted and smeared with a broad brush.
In my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to accept the word of authority more readily than liberal folks do.
Here's a fellow who's to the extreme right of most American conservatives. Yet he's an "Independent." Next he'll be telling us he's a "Skeptic" rather than a JFK conspiracy theorist.
Compare with American Conservative CTs who think the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen by the US government.
Oh my goodness. Why are you always out to lunch? Many staunch conservatives have bitterly condemned my websites on the Pacific War and the atomic bomb and on earl Harbor. For that matter, the majority of conservatives reject my belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy, in an RFK assassination conspiracy, and in an MLK assassination conspiracy.
Also, just FYI, I support universal healthcare, affirmative action for federal contracts, red-flag gun control laws, expanding background checks for gun purchases, banning rifle sales to anyone under 21, and federal infrastructure spending, to name some of my positions that oppose those of purist conservatives.
In fact, I was afraid that someone who has followed my postings on the major political boards would challenge my self-description of "conservative Independent." I debated whether to say "centrist Independent" instead, since I actually hold a number of views that are left-of-center.
I think that greatly depends on who or what the authority is. Conservatives tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the military, the police, an intelligence agency, or an elected official whom they like. On the other hand, liberals tend to readily--and often uncritically--accept the word of authority when it's in the form of the traditional news media, liberal foreign governments, and elected officials whom they like.
The roots of WWII Pacific War conspiracy theory trace back to conservatives. How do you know whether "staunch" conservatives "bitterly condemned" your websites? Your sites have no Feedback. You may be criticized on the lack of scholarship by moderate conservatives.
Those are issues that have merit for conservatives, depending on their state or region.
"Left-of-center"? Add delusional.
The OP said you were "a volunteer for the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2020";
the same OP has you "blaming the victim" in the racial-motivated murder of George Floyd.
And how many conservatives think OJ is innocent? Can you name me one?
You know nothing about George Floyd's death beyond what your liberal news sources have told you. Why did the police arrest George Floyd? Because he had used counterfeit currency. Here are some other facts that you obviously don't know but that were established at Chauvin's trial--many of these facts are documented on the police bodycam footage:
How do I know? Well, there are these things called politics forums/boards, such as USMB. Thereon many, many ardent conservatives have bitterly/virulently condemned my websites on the use of the atomic bomb and on Pearl Harbor.
They've also condemned my website on O.J. Simpson, because I argue that he did not murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend.
Go to USMB and read my exchanges with conservatives who've attacked my The Pacific War and the Atomic Bomb website. The "lack of scholarship" is on their side, not mine. The majority of scholars who specialize in the Japanese surrender have long concluded that nuking Japan was not necessary.
Name me one prominent conservative who supports universal healthcare. Let's see a name. When the recent gun control bill went to conference, Republicans adamantly insisted on dropping the provision that banned rifle sales to people under 21. Name me one conservative who supports affirmative action for all federal contract jobs. Let's see a name.
I named several positions of mine that are left-of-center. I could name several more.
And how many conservatives think OJ is innocent? Can you name me one?
Yes, that's right, and many, many centrist Independents voted for Trump. Do you not live in the U.S.?
You know nothing about George Floyd's death beyond what your liberal news sources have told you. Why did the police arrest George Floyd? Because he had used counterfeit currency.
Here are some other facts that you obviously don't know but that were established at Chauvin's trial--many of these facts are documented on the police bodycam footage:
* Floyd began ignoring police instructions while he was still in the car he was driving when the police first approached him outside the store where he had used the counterfeit money. The police were called to the scene because a store employee called the police after he realized that Floyd had used a fake $20 bill. The employee and another employee had twice asked Floyd to just return the cirgarettes that he'd "bought" with the fake money, but both times Floyd refused--and that's why the police were called.
* The police repeatedly asked Floyd to get into the back of the police car so they could take him to the police station for questioning about where he got the counterfeit money. Each time, Floyd refused.
* Floyd began claiming he could not breathe before the police ever even tried to put him in the police car.
* Officer Chauvin even offered to roll down the windows for Floyd and to sit next to him to help him feel at ease on the way to the station.
* After it became clear that Floyd was not going to get into the police car, even though he said he would, the police tried to put him in the car. Floyd fiercely resisted and was so strong that it took three officers to finally get him in the car.
* But once in the car, Floyd immediately scooted out the other side of the car and again resisted. Only then did Chauvin decide to pin Floyd on the ground.
* When Floyd was resisting, he kicked two of the police officers and knocked Chauvin's body camera off him.
* When Floyd again began to claim that he could not breathe, naturally and logically, none of the officers believed him because he had said the same thing just before and during his fierce resistance to being placed in the police car.
* It came out in the autopsy report and was established at trial that Floyd had taken nearly 4 times the lethal dosage of fentanyl. The medical examiner admitted that if Floyd had died in an apartment with that much fentanyl in his blood, his death would have been ruled as an overdose.
* One of the known side effects of the *normal* dosage of fentanyl is slowed and even halted breathing.
* Floyd had a serious heart condition and suffered from hypertension. But of course the police officers did not know any of this, nor did they know that Floyd had ingested nearly 4 times the lethal dosage of fentanyl.
* If Floyd had simply gotten into the police car, he would not have been pinned. If Floyd had simply returned the cigarettes that he got with the fake currency, the police never would have been called in the first place. If Floyd had not taken such a massive dose of fentanyl, having a 180-pound man put his knee of Floyd's upper back would not have caused his death.
* Floyd had a long criminal record, including armed robbery. Floyd had also been a porn actor and in one scene had sex with a girl young enough to be his daughter.
Maybe they're like you. Have "ardent" and "staunch" conservative views on certain things but lazily self-identify as "centrist" and "Independent". I would bet most Liberal and Conservatives -- even hardcore Conservatives like yourself -- would self-identify as "objective" and "fairminded". I suspect most racists (like Donald Trump) think they don't "have a racist bone in their body".
They probably argue that because it's stupid.
Most Republican have private-health and want to be see a hybrid healthcare system, in which the both public and private models coexist. I'm sure there are many Conservative service-people, and Federal officials and politicians who enjoy their Government healthcare plan. Even Donald Trump said he didn't want Americans dying on the street because they couldn't afford healthcare.
Robert Shapiro.
OK. Far-Right Conservatives who self-identify as "centrists" and "Independents" responded to Trump's dog-whistles and voted for a racist who promoted "Big Tent" conspiracy theories.
You're claiming the "liberal" news press (which I figure you think make up most of the media in the US) has never reported that Floyd had used counterfeit currency?
I understand one employee made two trips to the car but with different people each time. He said they wanted Floyd to return to the store to talk to the manager.
All the more reason not to pin Floyd to the ground and force all of one's body weight onto his neck. Floyd claimed he was claustrophobic about being put in the back seat which was partitioned from the front. And that it would make his breathing difficult.
LOL!. How often do you see suspect being driven to jail with the back window down? Imagine a racist like Derek Chauvin sitting beside Floyd with the back window open. Chauvin would have put Floyd in the back seat with the windows closed just to watch him suffer. Why not call for a larger vehicle or one with air conditioning in the back.
Where was "Chivalrous Chauvin's" offer to ease his weight off Floyd's respiratory system when Floyd said he couldn't breathe and was calling "mama"? When the trained-EMT bystander said Floyd was dying.
You're claiming the "liberal" media never reported that Floyd resisted being put into the police car? I'm pretty sure every news media showed video of it.
From Chauvin's body camera. This is Floyd "kicking" officers and knocking Chauvin's camera off?
The report couldn't speak to when drugs were taken; their presence can take days to leave the system. Floyd had norfentanyl in his blood, meaning the fentanyl had begun to break down.
The medical examiner said the greater factor in Floyd's death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression." This finding was supported by an independent examination: "asphyxiation from sustained pressure was the cause."
Floyd didn't have a lethal dosage of fentanyl. Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist at NMS Labs in Pennsylvania, testified at Racist-Cop Chauvin's trial the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd's system was lower than a quarter of those in a DUI study (samples were taken from live people).
"Toxicologist Testifies on Drug Levels in George Floyd’s System Compared to DUI cases" (ABC News Link (https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/toxicologist-testifies-drug-levels-george-floyds-system-compared-76955214) )
Cardiologist Jonathan Rich testified: "I can state with a high degree of medical certainty that George Floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event, and he did not die from a drug overdose."
Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist of Loyola University Medical Center testified at Racist-Cop Chauvin's trial: "A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died."
Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid that is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent. . . .
Fentanyl's effects include . . . problems breathing. . . .
When people overdose on fentanyl, their breathing can slow or stop. This can decrease the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain, a condition called hypoxia. Hypoxia can lead to a coma and permanent brain damage, and even death. (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/fentanyl))
Reasonable police officers throughout the course of a control technique will continue to assess the level of resistance. Remember what Lieutenant Johnny Mercil said: “Simply because a person isn’t kicking at you or punching at you or biting at you, it does not mean that you can’t control them physically with your body weight.”
This is the point where Dr. Tobin testified that Mr. Floyd had an anoxic seizure. Right? But we’re not analyzing the use of force from the perspective of a doctor with 46 years of medical experience who had 150 hours of time to watch an event from multiple perspectives over and over and over and over again. It’s a reasonable police officer standard. How would a reasonable police officer interpret this? Does a reasonable police officer even know what an anoxic seizure is? A reasonable police officer will interpret this as at least some form of minimal resistance. Reasonable police officers, again, are continuing to monitor. They’re expecting EMS to arrive.
A reasonable police officer will take into consideration, again, his training, his experience, right? Lieutenant Mercil talked about, and many people talked about, many of the officers talked about how it is not uncommon for suspects to feign or pretend to have a medical emergency to avoid being arrested. Unfortunately, that is the reality. Nobody likes to get arrested and reasonable police officers know that. How many times does someone, “Oh, my heart hurts,” or I’m having a medical emergency,” insert whatever emergency. Right? Simply because they don’t want to go to jail.
A reasonable police officer will take his training into experience. And you heard Lieutenant Mercil specifically say that when someone says that they can’t breathe, but they are talking, if they’re talking, it means they’re breathing. Right? If they’re talking, it means they’re breathing. Again, compare that to the testimony of Dr. Tobin, who told you that same thing. That is true. If you are talking, you are breathing. It doesn’t mean effectively. Dr. Tobin described how even medical doctors have problems sometimes assessing the legitimacy of a patient’s needs relevant to their respiratory processes because they’re saying, “I can’t breathe,” and some doctors confuse it for just anxiety or this or that. If medical doctors make these mistakes, Dr. Tobin told you it provides a false sense of security. Right? Lieutenant Mercil told you that that is what is said among police officers. He’s the trainer. How many times do we hear an officer say based on his training and experience, if you can talk, you can breathe? I counted seven.
No one said the police who assaulted Floyd knew of his criminal record. Porn star? So what? Donald Trump associated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Just for the fun of it, let's just briefly consider another case. Let's consider the OJ Simpson case. Conservatives and libs alike here - what are your thoughts on the OJ case? Did the prosecutor or defense get it right? Was the jury correct in acquitting him? And whatever your response is, why do you think so?
More dishonest, shifting, squirming drivel, the kind you usually put out. I don't think I've ever seen you admit a single error, no matter how plainly it's been documented for you.
Yup, as usual, when confronted with facts that refute your position, you went running only to sources that you knew agreed with you and cited/copied-and-pasted from those sources.
You might try reading the Chauvin trial transcript.
You also very dishonestly cherry-picked screencaps from the police bodycam footage, or you just copied-pasted those screencaps from another site that cherry-picked them. Anyone who watches the entire bodycam footage will see how dishonest your screencaps are.
Let's get a few facts straight:
* The footage that shows the best view of Derek Chauvin's knee on George Floyd shows that his knee was not on the neck but on the area of the upper back just below the neck. Even the very anti-Chauvin Minneapolis police chief admitted this under cross examination. The medical examiner also acknowledged this.
* The chief medical examiner, after noting that he was aware of cases where people had died from 3 ng/ml of fentanyl, observed that if Floyd had been found dead in an apartment with 11 ng/ml of fentanyl in his blood, his death would have been ruled an overdose. Floyd's toxicology report showed 11 ng/ml of fentanyl in his blood.
* Floyd began complaining about being unable to breathe long before he was pinned on the ground. This was probably because of the large amount of fentanyl he had ingested. A known, documented side effect of the normal dosage of fentanyl is "slowed breathing" and "stopped breathing." Floyd took much more than the normal dosage. Another plausible cause of Floyd's breathing issue was his heart condition and hypertension combined with the excitement of the police encounter. All of these factors may have caused his breathing issue.
Regardless of the reason, Floyd began to claim that he could not breathe several minutes before he was pinned on the ground, so clearly there was something medically wrong with him before Chauvin pinned him on the ground. Yet the prosecution made the ludicrous claim that Floyd's health issues and drug ingestion played no role in his death, and that Floyd died solely and only from the force that Chauvin applied.
* Floyd was only pinned on the ground after he refused to get into the police car and then violently resisted arrest. Floyd’s resistance included kicking one of the officers hard enough to nearly knock him over. If Floyd had gotten into the police car and not resisted arrest, he never would have been pinned on the ground in the first place.
(snip)
(The police did not know about Floyd's criminal record and his revolting porn career. I mentioned it to give some context to the efforts to turn Floyd into a "great hero," "loving father," "devoted family man."
| (https://www.smdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/trumpicantremember.png) | (https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/11/20/USAT/606ee072-86a3-44ce-9fe2-4b6f1718f649-VPC_RUDY_GIULIANI_HAIR_DYE_MISHAP_DESK_THUMB.jpg) | (https://historytogo.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Brigham_Young-Old.jpg) |
In my experience, in general, conservative folks tend to accept the word of authority more readily than liberal folks do.
Are conservatives more logical than liberals?
Just ask this question - Can a man get pregnant?
What are conservatives saying on this issue and what are liberals saying?
Not any more. With the JFK case, it's not a matter of accepting the word of authority. It's a matter of knowing and accepting the evidence.
Most of the replies are missing the point that JFK assassination authors should refrain from expressing their views on issues that do not directly relate to the JFK assassination, especially if those issues are controversial political or historical issues. That's the point.
For example, I have reluctantly and sadly concluded that the January 6 committee has presented solid evidence that Trump purposely delayed calling on the rioters to stand down. This shameful conduct makes him an accessory to the riot, and the GOP should repudiate him and expel him from the party for it. But, I'm never going to inject my view on this matter into one of my articles on the JFK assassination, even though I know that the majority of my readers would agree with it.
A new survey from FiveThirtyEight released this week finds that’s right about where the public is today: 61% believe others were involved in JFK’s assassination, while 33% believe one man acted alone.
But the most interesting finding in the FiveThirtyEight poll is the breadth of the nation’s JFK conspiracy beliefs. More than 50 percent of most every demographic group believes “others were involved” in the assassination: Men and women, whites, blacks and Hispanics, registered voters and non-registered, all age groups.
And in an era when the political divides appear in everything from media consumption to shopping habits, the JFK assassination is one area where supporters of President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton agree: 61 percent of Trump voters and 59 percent of Clinton voters believe “others were involved.”
The one demographic group that believes Oswald acted alone, according to the FiveThirtyEight poll, is college educated white people – and the numbers are very close with 48 percent saying one man killed JFK and 46 percent saying others were involved...
Agreed. The authoritarian regime they live under is making good choices. They have better leadership than they had back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. And those bad leaders back then, while supported by the United States, were dictators.
However, all governments, authoritarian or democratic, eventually go bad. The difference is that with democratic countries, the people eventually wise up and elect different people. Eventually, the situation generally gets sorted out. With authoritarian governments, the dictator, or the ones in charge, might decide they want to remain in power. And the people can’t put things right without a revolution. Which can be easier said than done.
Vietnam is doing ok now. But some day, it is going to go south on them. It always does. Without democracy, they are doomed.
The JFK assassination is one of the few issues where partisanship isn't a factor
2017 - The One Thing All Americans Agree On: JFK Conspiracy
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/jfk-assassination-files/one-thing-all-americans-agree-jfk-conspiracy-n815371
Here's a fellow who's to the extreme right of most American conservatives. Yet he's an "Independent." Next he'll be telling us he's a "Skeptic" rather than a JFK conspiracy theorist.You're a skeptic.
The LNers don't proclaim the WR as if it's Gospel.Yeah, right... tell us another one :D
Another sad example of ultra-liberal politics in good pro-conspiracy presentations is the four-hour version of Oliver Stone's new JFK documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. JFK Revisited is the two-hour version. The long version contains a large dose of ultra-liberal politics. Has it ever occurred to conspiracy theorists that a person does not have to be an ultra-liberal to regret JFK's death, to admire the good things he did, and to believe he was killed by a conspiracy?
Just because a person recognizes the positive aspects of JFK's presidency and believes he was killed by a conspiracy does not mean that person must believe the Vietnam War was evil, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that killing terrorists with drones is wrong, that the PATRIOT Act severely violates the Constitution, etc., etc.
Not sure how you got that from watching the Destiny Betrayed version.
Oliver Stone does inject his politics into most of his work but I don’t think it was over the top like a Michael Moore documentary in his recent JFK docs…
I believe Griffith was talking there about Oliver Stone in general (maybe the "Untold History" project), and not the "JFK Revisited" propaganda film.
People reading that might think you're referring to Michael Moore's documentaries about JFK. There are no such docs and you're really referring to Stone's JFK docs. One can see how perception can sometimes alter the meaning. Many JFK witnesses have been the victims of false interpretation (on both sides of the debate).