Michael Hardner

You realize that we've already been there in a recent post, right?

This guy? "What I find more disturbing is that this gentlemen, representing himself as a monastic under the Russian >Orthodox Church Outside Russia, operates a website on which he launches some very serious attacks >against the Jewish people. In his website introduction he states, "I wish to warn how Zionist Jews are >destroying Christianity throughout the world." The website is: http://www.realzionistnews.com/" A mentally ill anti Semite who purports to be an Orthodox cleric... ... Family entertainment on a Wednesday night I'm sure...

Interesting that you "know" I'm Jewish too And why would you be on the JDLs radar hmm? 🤔

Okay well I wouldn't go that far. There's a big space between.... People. Don't trust them, and they must be removed. I live in that space.

Well, I'm not going to defend the thesis of someone as qualified as Steven Pinker. I recommend you search out the articles, but from what I've seen they align from the statistics I've seen. Keep in mind that they're going to use empirical data tracked from several sources over time. They will not just be quoting conflicts. For what it's worth. I do believe there was a spike upwards in World war II.

I'm doing the audiobook of Enlightenment Now! I recommend that to all conservatives. You misunderstanding me is not my cognitive dissonance. It's your misinterpretation I trust the institutions at heart, and think they all need to be reformed. All of them. That's a far cry from saying, for example, Bush did 9/11. And yes lots of people on here think that.

1. 2. Ok, so you don't believe me. Don't talk to me if you think that I am a liar. Where do you think anti GMO, anti vax came from? Granola hippies who oppose science somehow migrated the political spheres. But they're still that way. Anti nuclear, anti everything. 3. I define chuds as ignorant people. Period. 4. If you want to use my definition, fine, but you're saying that you are ignorant then. And you want me to use your definition then just post what it is and I'll look at that.

The trend is towards less violence and fewer wars over time

1. Nobody can force me to select between false choices. And I won't 2. Chuds are ignorant people of any political stripe. I personally know more left chuds than right ones. 3. Of course it has, I have never doubted that. But rejecting all institutions isn't going to help us.

It depends on what you're referring to.

Actually, I'm doing the audiobook of Steven Pinker 's Enlightenment Now! and his entire thesis is that there's CONSTANT SLOW IMPROVEMENT in all aspects of human activity and life, and that these things are chronically under-reported. I don't agree with all of it, but a lot of it is definitely true.

Maybe, but you still have to cite any of this stuff. Even then, given the drama of the last administration, it's going to be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff

Wow, it sounds like there's another poster on here who tries to to WIN debates and is TOXIC 😦, DUI... People who discuss with me, on the other hand, can check to see that I LIKE almost every poster's posts from time to time. Sounds weird but I actually don't hate anyone, see... 🤔

At least you trust me enough to respond. Thanks for the clarity.

1. Here, Mr. "Games", is your statement "Are you unable to respond to what is actually being said?" "What is being said" is an example of the passive voice, in grammar. So my natural question is "what is being said by whom" ? To which you accuse me of playing more games. You seriously pick apart every single thing I say because you suspect every statement is loaded. It's just not. As I said, you don't trust me so discussion is at best very difficult. 2. Yes, I make an assumption that your parsing of my every word is because you see some kind of attack laying in wait. 3. In your mind. Since you don't trust me, it's bizarre as to why you continue to engage. 4. I do ignore you a lot of the time, as should you if you don't trust me. Speaking of games, this interaction isn't amounting to much more than a game at this point. Do you trust me any more after these explanations ?

1. "I am not saying POTATO ... I am simply saying POTAHTO" 2. Huh ? 3. Huh ? Yeah... whatever you are saying here, it's dire. Whether the sky is falling, or it fell, it's dire.

What you said ? If I respond to the post without addressing a certain point, it means I have nothing to dispute, nothing to add. You can take it as tacit acceptance. Sure but the original context, which I have now forgotten, provided as it's basis a single-dimension spending summary. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It sounds like people are saying spending will be going down. So let's put a pin in that. I don't see it, based on history.

What's Prod ? Prod-estant ? 🤔

Yes because I see comments that are ambiguous on that topic. Asking broad questions isn't necessarily an 'attack'.

That's your post ? A cut/paste of a wiki page ?

You want scorched earth, though. You think the system is beyond corrupt. So you use a "discussion" board to post dire warnings as in "The End is Near". It's puzzling.

In what universe is asking for clarification playing silly games ? You act as though the views of someone who supports Trump's inscrutable take on militarism are 100% clear. I'm dubious that something as vast as the defense dept budget can be boiled down to some convenient political aphorisms, is all. You don't trust me anyway so maybe don't comment on my discussions with others until you do trust me.

So... where are we then ? Pay more or pay less... maybe decide which one is better...

The idea that a Senator might be biased due to their donors is something interesting but to me it's a reach in this instance. First of all, every Senator is in the pocket of its donors, especially the military, on both sides. Secondly, there was no reduction in defense department spending in Trump's first term. I posted a graph recently that showed spending went up each year. So this is all "what if..." "suppose that..." type thinking. For the Senator to go against her own party, I would assume she has real misgivings.

But the disinfo problem goes hand in hand with the poor ecology of the public in shooting down ridiculous claims. It should be a common habit for people to shoot down extremists from their own side of the fence, IMO. Liberals shoot down radical claims by leftists, Red Torys shoot down alt-right weirdos. Clean up the mess and disinfo will stand out like a piece of sh!t on the floor of a pastry shop. ----------------- Forums like this represent a potential space for true discussion, but for the people who treat discussion like it's an all-or-nothing bloodsport, and who think their enemies are subhumans whose ideas need to be eliminated. So let's legalize militias and ban individuals from owning firearms less than 250 years old ? Maybe you have a germ of an idea, Auguste. I appreciate your posts.