This is kind of interesting if you're into body language. She's not my favorite body language interpreter, however.
Ken, how can you tell me that I wouldn't consider something realistic if there were realistic evidence that it is???? Yes, I do have opinions, but I believe that I can provide evidence to support them.
Did anyone see the side-by-side video with Biden's arrival compared to Putin's arrival? You can definitely see who Saudi Arabia respects more. As I heard it, no one from the national government was there to greet Biden upon arrival; it was the mayor of Mecca. For Putin, the Crown Prince himself was there to greet him.
But, according to you, the key is in whether the receiver considers the source of the evidence to be credible. The sources that you would consider credible are hardcore proponents of the global progressive movement, including government sources, which clearly have an agenda, and you would probably feel the same about the sources that I would consider credible. This is why trading source quotes are highly ineffective.
So, that’s what you got out of Ken’s post? He didn’t write anything at all about not discussing a subject. An example of what he wrote might be the divided territory involving the media. One person might consider CNN as a credible source for all things political whilst another person relies on FOX to be the more truthful. If neither person is willing to analyze both versions of the same story but only considers their own source then the conversation remains stubbornly stagnant. To me, it is kind of like seeing three doctors about a broken back. One says you’ll never walk again, another says you undoubtedly will and the other says with the right kind of therapy you stand a chance. No matter which one is true or false, the one that fits with your own way of thinking is the one you will follow. The first two doctors offer nothing in the way of discussion whereas the third one opens up a whole dialog dealing with the exploration of finding out the truth. Still, it’s up to you as to what you want to believe and what you wish to accomplish. Some people will settle for being a paraplegic, others will wait for their legs to suddenly move whilst others want to explore all the possibilities and are not only willing to talk about it but welcome it.
On the other hand, discussing things using your own brain as opposed to borrowing quotes from experts is more entertaining and interesting, if nothing else. Pitting pet experts and publications against one another is kind of a waste of time. While you might accept everything published by the Washington Post or broadcast by CNN as gospel, I consider them to be among the largest sources of partisan lies imaginable, while I don't believe anything that doesn't make sense to me. Persuasion can be productive, but unreliable citations are not persuasive. I expect you feel much the same about sources that you consider unreliable, so flinging them at one another is indeed a waste of effort. I don't mind, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time with it.
I've been what I call a "news junky" for most of my life. Even as an undergraduate college student I spent at least an hour a day reading newspapers. My problem with CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. etc. is that they don't tell the whole story. For example, we read about the people from what Trump called the "Shithole Countries" trying to cross the border, but don't read about why their countries are the way they are. What I seem to be reading here is that our political opinions should be like our religions. 'I'm Catholic, so there's no reason or purpose to discuss religion with a Southern Baptist. I wonder how many Republicans are against available abortion and Biden's "Bild Back America..." not because they're against, but because the Dems are in favor of it. I might add that I've been an atheist during most of my adult life. I have never, and never will try to convince a believing friend to join me. Political opinions are different.
I'd say discuss it all you want, but don't be surprised if you don't win converts. Using the Book of Mormon in the hopes of converting a Southern Baptist probably won't be productive, although I suppose it could be interesting.
I just watched a news clip of Biden talking about cancer, and he said something about that is why he and so many other people in Delaware have cancer, and that Delaware was the state with the highest cancer rate for a long time. Has anyone else heard this , or know if he has cancer or is just rambling and telling stories that he thinks sounds good again ?
The White House clarified US President Joe Biden's apparent claim Wednesday that he has cancer, saying he was referring to a skin cancer diagnosis he received before becoming president which has been remedied. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/w...er-biden-appears-to-say-he-has-cancer/2641958 (Once again, "White House clarifies...." )
I guess one state has gotta be the highest. I'm not sure that's meaningful. You know what they say: lies, damned lies and Oh look at the butterfly!
I read that too, when I was looking to see if it showed any record of previous cancers. The thing is, he said it was a cancer that he got from the bad oil refineries , just like everyone else. What he reportedly had was a non-melanoma skin cancer that was removed, and according to the information online, they say that this kind of non-melanoma skin cancer is caused by the sun, and not from asbestos or oil refineries , like Biden said that his was caused from. So, he was just throwing the story in for effect, or he doesn’t even know what kind of cancer he had or what caused it. Or, he really does have lung cancer, which is what Delaware has people dying from, although they report it is from smoking, and not oil refineries. According to news reports, it is lung cancer that is the highest in Delaware, so definitely not skin cancer. Biden has been seen coughing a lot lately when he was trying to speak, and even just sitting at a table and not speaking; so lung cancer is a possibility, I think. It would certainly give him a credible reason to leave office and not be impeached. The White House even explains that Biden’s doctor said the skin cancer was from him spending a lot of time out in the sun; so definitely nothing to do with oil refineries. https://www.ibtimes.com/president-joe-biden-has-cancer-heres-what-non-melanoma-skin-cancer