lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

Hopefully, responders can keep this “civil” and it will not immediately be thrown into the “Attic”.

I think we can all agree that there is a massive divide in both what and how people think. We make conscious, and sometime unconscious decisions about what to believe. Many of these come from how we were reared, educated, and the group(s) to which we associate.

We have seemed to have lost the core of common interpretations of the words that are tossed around about what it means to be an “American”. My definition of Democracy may be vastly different from yours. When a significant number of people believe NOTHING that comes from their government is factual, or that there is a conspiracy by something termed “mass media” to lie to us, or that science is mostly fraudulent, the very future of our society and country is dismal.

Nearly 70 years after the schools I attended began teaching me “social studies” I realize that I was expected to accept my teacher’s words as gospel, and that the sources quoted as accurate were sometimes not. Regardless. I wa given that core to fall back on AND I was taught how to question and research what seemed problematic.

I ask where you cull your facts and why. And why sources that provide opposing idea are vilified rather than considered in proportion to their historical and proven records?

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

I believe we are at a crossroads in our country. Will there be a civil war. The J** 6 r**t was the first symptom of the unrest that lies beneath the surface of our great country. A c**p attempt to unravel an legal e******n. They say the first c**p attempt usually fails but the second usually is successful. Worried in Florida!

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

To quote Micheal Smerconish “change the channel”. Too many of us stay fixed on a single source of information when there are credible opinions and interpretations of events on all sides of the political spectrum. It’s those that refuse diversity in thought that potentially doom our great country.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This topic, regardless of the civility of the replies, is most likely headed for the attic.
--Bob

Wuligal Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.

To incorporate the premise of the "Who Do you Trust" post - I respectfully ask this question of you: if what happened on 1-6 was a c**p how would you describe a groups of 1000's dressed in black taking over whole cities? Was that also a c**p?

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Really don't understand what your question is addressing. If you are talking about our second Vietnam I would address this as correcting a 20 year 2 trillion dollar mistake.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

I am going to guess that by politicizing this thread this conversation will soon be sent to the Attic. I refuse to follow it there; and do not presume to answer for LEWHITE7747, but I would like the opportunity to reply to the question:
The events of 1-6 were at the least a Rally to protest the e******n and at worst an armed i**********n to invade the Capitol to prevent the legal and Constitutional sanctioning of that e******n.
The B*M rallies were an effort to call attention to the their cause by disrupting Business and daily activities in some cities.
For a moment, let’s forget the illegalites intertwined with the two different activities.
Members of the 1-6 rally refused to accept a result that had passed every option for legal scrutiny. A simplistic analogy: A controversial call is made by a referee at a sporting competition. It is argued. It is appealed, A ruling is reached. It is over. Play the game,
For those who believe R****m exists, there has been no process that has definitively ruled that it does not. The B*M peaceful protestors had a legal and logical right to march though the streets. The 1-6 protestors had the same legal right, but logically there slogans should have been “We will win in 2024”.
I am not clear on how a successful outcome for the B*M marches would have looked other than an increase in public awareness of the organization and a more educated debate on the issues brought up.
For the 1-6 protestors to have been successful there would have had to be an abandonment of Constitutional principles and/or a militaristic o*******w of the government. In other words a c**p.

Wuligal Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.

I do not recall anyone on 1-6 asking for a militaristic o*******w of the government. If indeed there was any rationale at all for the r**t it would have been for an investigation into the v****g irrugarlitaries in some states - of which my own state was one of the offenders. On the other hand B*M demanded disbandment of all state formed and controlled law enforcement , the release of legally incarcerated criminals,the takeover of both private and public property by anarchists, immunity from arrest, and free food and health care. They got most of what they demanded with no r********ns to the property owners or tax payers for their losses.

The t***h is we are probably both right and we are both wrong in our view points. Unless we find a place of balance this nation is going to sink with the weight of the burden. Never forget the words of Mr. Khrushchev: "We will bury you from within."

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

I love that quote. My friend and I were talking about this the other day. They will never destroy this nation by force. It will be imploded from within. Brother against brother.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The question is about where one finds his or her t***hs. What sources do they rely upon as factual? What sources do they not find factual.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

Exactly!

tramsey Loc: Texas

Who do I trust? My wife and me, everyone else is in serious question

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

[quote=Wuligal]I do not recall anyone on 1-6 asking for a militaristic o*******w of the government. If indeed there was any rationale at all for the r**t it would have been for an investigation into the v****g irrugarlitaries in some states - of which my own state was one of the offenders. On the other hand B*M demanded disbandment of all state formed and controlled law enforcement , the release of legally incarcerated criminals,the takeover of both private and public property by anarchists, immunity from arrest, and free food and health care. They got most of what they demanded with no r********ns to the property owners or tax payers for their losses.

Not quite, and I suspect you have bought into some irresponsible reporting.
First about B*M: Not disbandment of law enforcement, defunding - - - a terrible choice of words because on investigation what they were asking was different emphasis on where funding would be distributed. For instance, use psychologists to confront matrimonial disputes, rather than armed officers. If indeed the other requests you list are accurate, and I do not recall hearing or seeing them, they are ridiculous; and the hyperbolic efforts of a group hoping for recognition. There are crazy extremists on all sides of the political agenda. R********ns were never about to happen because there was no way to assign or enforce responsibility of the actions of the criminals.

A substantial number of 1-6 protestors invaded the capital armed and threatening to hang the Vice President. Perhaps empty threats, but still . . . And they were certainly there, by there own admission, to disrupt the v**e count that would name the new president. There were and still are doubts about the honesty and efficacy of the v****g; but they have gone through every legal appeal possible and have been found to be unprovable. Personally, I think there were few, but not no, irregularities in the e******n. At what point do the deniers accept that the system "worked" and move on to change how it may work NEXT time. That's how things are supposed to operate in this country.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

I don't watch Fox news.

Wuligal Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.

[quote=lesdmd]

I'm not here to judge who is right and who is wrong. I'm here to question and perhaps someone out there can shine a bit of light on the darkness that has overtaken my once bright world. I'll start here........

If we can let logic prevail we would admit that all r**ting is wrong. It is wrong to burn property and l**t stores. It is wrong to deface any and all property including Federal buildings. It is wrong to fire bullets into the heads of babies. It is wrong to smash windows and breakdown doors. It is wrong to threaten the well being of others. It is wrong to injure others. It is wrong to block public highways and freeways. It is wrong to deny entrance to emergency vehicles at hospitals. It is wrong to k**l unarmed people no matter what your official capacity. It is wrong to shoot strangers on the street. It is wrong to assault law officials with rocks and frozen water bottles. It is wrong to throw eggs and scream obscenities at candidates for office because you h**e his party affiliation.

If J*** 6th was wrong then so were all the B*M/A****A r**ts. if there is justification for what went on in Portland and Seattle then there must be equal justification for J*** 6th. Either we are equal or we are not. Either we have the same set of standards for everyone or we don't. Either my worth is on a par with yours or it is not. Either my t***h has the same value as your t***h or it doesn't.

Either you think there is some weight in what I just said or you don't. Which is it and why?