Subj : Re: COVID Redux To : Gregory Deyss From : Jeff Thiele Date : Tue Oct 11 2022 10:52:36 On 11 Oct 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following... GD> JT> There is plenty of free storage available in the cloud for the asking GD> Thank you, but I think these files should be made available to all who GD> want to download and view them. There is plenty of publicly accessible free storage available in the cloud for the asking. GD> JT> GD> JT> GD> with America First, you saw it as derogatory. My quest GD> JT> GD> JT> America First has racist origins and undertones. GD> JT> GD> You're as white as snow Jeff, besides what racist origins or GD> JT> GD> understandings and who gave your aside any authority to have thi GD> JT> GD> so. GD> JT> I trust you've seen the link in my other post by now. And I said, "ra GD> JT> origins and undertones," not "racist origins and understandings." GD> JT> I assume by "aside" you mean "side," as in how can the left judge GD> JT> "America First" to be racist, and I'll let my other post speak for GD> JT> itself on that. GD> I did not see but search for "racist origins and undertones." GD> I will respond accordingly. I see you found it. GD> JT> Not being 100% pro-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic GD> And Omar's most fundamental point that it would be better to talk about GD> the underlying issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than GD> nitpicking her language is reasonable. The irony is that her own word GD> choice is what causes this problem: By using charged language on a GD> tremendously sensitive topic, she ends up distracting from the GD> conversation she really wants to start. Or you're just being overly sensitive. GD> The use of the word "allegiance" in reference to Israel particularly in GD> context of the activities of the heavily Jewish pro-Israel lobbying GD> world is a touchy subject for good reason: It touches on age-old GD> anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, being non-anti-Semitic does not mean having 100% allegiance to Israel and the Israeli agenda, whatever it may be at the time. In the same way, for Israel to be pro-American does not require 100% allegiance to the US and its agenda, whatever it may be at the time. GD> JT> Just because she doesn't agree with one Gregory Deyss GD> JT> doesn't make her anti-American. GD> You don't see her statements as being anti-American, perhaps you need to GD> re-read the disgusting statements that has come from that mouth. GD> Warning: I would not pine for this woman, it will be futile. Why do you judge women by how much you would pine for them? GD> JT> Perhaps you should question why you hold such intense hatred for peop GD> JT> with whom you disagree that you would promote deporting American GD> JT> citizens. GD> Ilhan Omar was a Somalian refugee. In the year 2000 she became a US GD> citizen. which is wonderful, but has vilified white people and referred GD> to Republicans as goons. GD> She also has said at timestamp 2:04 GD> "This is not going to be the country of White People." GD> https://tinyurl.com/ywjbr7b6 I understand what she means, and it is neither racist nor anti-American. The US has a long history of white men holding most of the power, and maintaining the status quo would just sustain that. She doesn't want an America that is predominantly ruled by white people. That doesn't mean that white people wouldn't have a place in her vision of America, or that white people would have less rights than anyone else. GD> It was also "White people " - Republicans that ended slavery. Ah, this old BS again. The Republicans of the 19th century were the conservatives of their time. I remember giving you a long list of examples when conservatives were on the wrong side of history. You said that you would check each of them individually and would get back to me. You never did. I wonder why. While it is true that the Republicans of the day helped to end slavery, they did not do it on their own. Democrats and Republicans being split on liberal/conservative lines is a very 20th=century thing. In the 19th century, the parties were more split on geographic lines. The Southern Democrats (who later became the modern Republican party) were very opposed to ending slavery, but so were any Republicans who managed to get elected in the South. Meanwhile northern Republicans were generally anti-slavery, but so were northern Democrats. That is history, but you go ahead and cling to your fairy tales if it makes you feel better. GD> Further Exposure from the Internet exposes these clowns for who they GD> really are. GD> Axios, LEFT-CENTER BIAS, These media sources have a slight to moderate GD> liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes GD> loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using GD> appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. Slight to moderate. That's not much. GD> The disease of cognitive dissonance and Trump Derangement Disorder is GD> running rampant in the MSM and with all the folks on the Left. And no GD> vaccine is currently available. I would argue that the right is suffering from cognitive dissonance and TDS, since they cannot accept any truth that would damage their fragile worldview. GD> The MSM gave Monica's Boyfriend's Wife a 93% probability of winning the GD> election of 2016. When she finished second in a two horse race, they lost GD> their ever lovin' collective minds, their worlds were destroyed, they GD> questioned their own ability to think and judge issues. 93% is not 100%; there is still a 7% chance that things will go the other way. Polls cannot predict the future. GD> Based upon their collective insanity, two approached were possible. GD> 1)Reconsider the facts & reconsider their approach to understanding the GD> facts. GD> 2) Reject any facts, make up a new false set of facts, demonize the GD> opposition and hold on to your beliefs even though they failed you. You mean like how you still cling to the belief that Trump actually won in 2020, despite the utter lack of credible evidence to the contrary? GD> The MSM, Billary and all the folks on the Left chose the latter. No, they didn't. Hillary conceded and Trump became president through a peaceful transfer of power. You're trying to justify what you, Trump, and others have done by projecting it onto Hillary and others. But the fact is that the two are not even remotely the same except that in both cases the candidates thought that they were going to win and didn't. Other than that, they couldn't be any more different. GD> The Charlottesville Incident GD> This was the moment in time where sleepy joe put his sippy cup down and GD> climbed on his high horse and declared that he was running the GD> presidency. What? Biden wasn't even president yet. GD> Joe Biden claims that President Trump fanned the flames of white GD> supremacy. GD> Biden asked. "How far is it from white supremacists and neo-Nazis in GD> Charlottesville [Trump's 'very fine people] chanting you will replace GD> us' to the shooter at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh saying GD> Jews are 'committing genocide' on his people. I don't think it's that GD> far at all." I would agree with him. (Except that the white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were chanting, "you will *not* replace us," a reference to the Great Replacement theory which Tucker Carlson later accepted as his own.) And keep in mind that the context of all of this was the proposed removal of a Confederate statue. GD> Biden went on to say that in both "language" and "code," the president GD> "has fanned the flames of white supremacy in this nation." Trump did, both with his "good people on both sides" remark and his "stand back and stand by" remark later. White supremacists and neo-Nazis are not good people. GD> Anyone who reads his statement can tell he was differentiating between GD> the neo-nazis mentioned in the question he was answering and the people GD> legitimately protesting the statue removal and park renaming. Needless GD> to say he also unequivocally condemned neo-nazis a few moments later: He did this only after the original statement was made. Trump knows that white supremacists and neo-Nazis form a crucial part of his base. While he may or may not agree with them, he needs their votes and has to be very careful about not offending them. That, I believe, was the reasoning behind the "both sides" remark. And if your premise about modern Republicans being the same as the Republicans who ended slavery, why were members of Trump's base defending a monument to the Confederacy? GD> As for Biden' conspiracy theorist comments that Trump speaks in codes and GD> encouraged the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, Did Biden actually say that Trump encouraged the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting? Your quote above doesn't support that claim. However, Trump does speak in coded language and dogwhistles. He makes clear what he wants without actually telling people to do what he wants, much like a Mafia boss might. "We're good friends, right? I mean, you think we're good friends, don't you? I've done a lot for you, haven't I? But here's the thing: I don't think that our relationship is reciprocal, you get what I'm saying? I think I'm giving you more than you're giving me, ok? So, I've got a little favor to ask of you..." Jeff. --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32) * Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26) .