Mike

Hmmm. That's something of a red herring for me. But I'll take your (mostly) agreement with me and enjoy it because the matter of spirituality seems like the larger issue that ought to concern you and me. However, talk with me some more about the comparison between the minister (a citizen) and the man on the street (a citizen). I'm thinking that if you show me a man (minister) who wants to talk politics from "his" pulpit or dressed as a minister or with his title alongside his name, and I'll show you a man who wants his opinion to carry more weight than the citizen on the street. (It just occurred to me that my remark could be taken personally. Please please don't take it that way because it isn't intended that way).

I think understand what you're saying, but you seem to have gone from "banner" to "title" and narrative has become the buzzword of the week. The narrative doesn't have to be perceived as set. We're smart enough to choose whether to pick it up and run with it or change it. I think the fact that I posted what I posted so far on this thread illustrates this, along with the fact that you have decided what you think the narrative is or should be--based I might add upon your own biases alongside my own biases. Seems to me what you write above is re-stating what we already know about human tendencies in general. You say the Democrats owned public opinion before Trump launched a "nuke" at CNN. That statement is, for me, a totally separate thread in itself relating to what I think is the damage he may be doing to the whole concept of journalism's role in a democracy (or a Republic or a democratic republic, or a free society, or whatever.) But I don't agree that the Democrats owned public opinion in the first place.

Without addressing the issue of enforcement, I would disagree with Candidate Trump. I might not feel that way if I believed the man on the street could walk up to any pulpit and express his preference for a political candidate. Any minister *can* speak his or her opinion in the same venues and manner as the man on the street can as far as I have observed. But when the minister does it from the pulpit then I think it pollutes the spiritual aspect of the church. My observations in LDS priesthood meetings and Sunday School classes (as well as meetings I have witnessed in other denominations' meetings) lead me to hold this opinion. So, I think the President has no point, but that he does have a political objective.

I copied only the part above because I think you and I are essentially in agreement about bias. Let me be clear that I don't deny that CNN is biased to the left, and as you pointed out FOX News is biased to the right. I have no problem with that. I presume that you and I are also similar in our efforts to listen (as much as we can stand given our own personal biases) two or more opposing networks because we think we'll get what we seek--that being either ammunition to use against our opponents or a the ability to decide for ourselves what the most complete picture of reality is, or heaven forbid merely assistance in keeping our point of view "pure", haha. So, I don't have a problem with a banner designed to get my attention the way CNN's banner was. Moreover, I wouldn't have a problem if FOX News (or any conservative-leaning network) posted a banner designed to get my attention based upon it's presumption of overall viewership bias. I believe the only point in my awareness of a given network's bias is to utilize it to check my own efforts at forming an understanding or opinion as I make comparisons. So, as to your question "why use the protester's point of view?", I feel like *that* is the news or at least part of it. I suppose they could have lead with something like "protest at UC Berkeley over conservative speaker..." or something, but for me it wouldn't make difference. I would still watch the video and come away with the same conclusions as I posted earlier.

What? How can that be? I mean didn't President Trump tell us otherwise? ... just a politician after all.

Thanks for that.

@anatess2 Just as an aside I can easily understand how some people (and even some discouraged Mormons from time-to-time) could come away with the notion (as inaccurate is it may be) that Earth is at least a very hellish place--given that at least one big player fancies himself to be in charge.

Sounds like a potential thread in itself. But unless you are disinterested in giving me more detail, I am interested in learning more. I'm curious about what lead to the question in the first place, and whether it was the (atheist) who asked it. Also, how did you answer the question? I'm not clear on how the (atheist) drew the conclusion that God causes bone cancer in babies and how believing in that God makes one a monster.

I don't need to watch much of the video? That's seems like a strange thing for you to say since the video is the subject of the OP, at least I thought it was. As to the banner being fake news I don't perceive it that way. Without knowing more I can't tell whether CNN is essentially identifying the protestors' motivations (i.e. what the protestors themselves feel about Milo Y. or whether some CNN tech (part of the team) has (rightly or wrongly) typed up a banner depicting a particular view-point that perceives Milo Y. as being one who gained fame by main-streaming alt-right views. For the moment I see the banner as being little more than an illustration of what @NeuroTypical reminded us regarding bias.

Moreover, I noticed that at about 3:19 - 3:59 she expressed "astonishment" that people were taking pictures and that as the flames increased she heard "cheers" from the crowd. I didn't get an impression that she was in any way sympathetic to what was going on.

What was that about?

If you are referring to the same description that I heard at 1:41 into the video, I'm not sure what you mean by very telling. I heard her say it was a "very *scary* energy happening". To me "very scary energy" is negative.

@anatess2 It does kinda look like an eye. It also looks like she's pulling her hair out. I suppose that's apropos on a political sub-forum.

I don't see this as a question of what the Founders intended. If they wanted an all-out brawl, then Senator Hatch (as an example) didn't act in the way the Founders intended. You can't have an all out brawl if one side won't participate--and I mean that as I mentioned with regard to the way the Republicans treated Judge Garland, but it goes for the Democrats, too. My problem is with fast-tracking the process by changing the rules to do what to me are end-runs around the intent of the Founders. I think I also disagree with your assessment about the desirability that a Party take things as far as they can go in one direction every time. Given that the population voted one way and the Electoral College voted another way, I think your assessment oversimplifies the matter. But that's somewhat beside the point. I don't think going from one extreme to another every term or two is good in the long run, nor do I think that's what has happened overall in the last 200 years.

If what you say is true, then the Senate didn't act in my best interests with regard to Judge Garland. I'm not saying they did anything wrong in the sense of illegal, just in the sense of what I opine to be wrong. If you disagree, or if the entire forum disagrees with me that's not a problem. I'm not saying I'm the barometer of right and wrong, just talking as one citizen.

Given most of the comments (except those about hair, hahaha) I may be spitting into the wind, but I feel that what Senator Hatch said and did was wrong. Not in the sense that the Parliamentarian advised that it could be done, but in the sense that in the interests of the future vs. how low we can out-stoop our adversaries it shouldn't have been done. I suspect the Democrats' boycott of the committee meeting was a kind of tit-for-tat tactic they thought would be in the spirit of the Republicans' treatment of Judge Garland, which was foolish to begin with because it seems apparent they can't out-fox the Republicans--the most salient reason is that they're outnumbered, pure and simple. It (the Reds' and the Blues' tactics) didn't *need* to be done. I'm of the opinion that the Republicans will get (for better or worse) most of what they've wanted for the last few decades. The pendulum has swung and it's possible that for the rest of our lives much of what has been achieved (for better or worse) over the last 50 years will soon be undone. It galls me, however, that the swamp critters all still exist, and the swamp drainers are after all just newly baptized politicians. They pretty much continue in the spirit of the old Batman and Joker dispute, "you made me", "you made me first".

That's something valuable for me to internalize and keep in mind.

Happy Fred Korematsu Day "Korematsu was born in Oakland, Calif., but his U.S. citizenship didn't keep him from being arrested for refusing to be relocated to an internment camp in 1942. He challenged his arrest in court, and two years later the case made its way to the Supreme Court. "Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, the decree that forced the relocation of people of Japanese descent to internment camps. The court ruled in favor of the government and against Korematsu in what is now widely considered one of its worst decisions. The majority of justices claimed the detentions were not based on racial discrimination but rather on suspicions that Japanese-Americans were acting as spies." --As reported by NPR http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/30/512488821/its-fred-korematsu-day-celebrating-a-foe-of-u-s-internment-camps

To an objective observer it would sound like Donald Trump is a pretty divisive president, wouldn't it. To be more precise I would say, yes this is certainly what we've become. But it didn't happen over night, or over the last 8 years, or even the last 30 years. In fact, it doesn't even matter when it began. It only matters that it's getting worse. And it matters that so may of us are (perhaps unwittingly, or perhaps without really caring--I can't say for sure) are feeding it and helping it worsen.

@Eowyn Believe it or not, I couldn't get this song out of my head when I titled the thread, haha.

Right. I didn't suppose it was about the election. From your remarks I took it to mean it is about locating illegals in order to deport them.

I am certainly willing to dig deeper. But there's a lot to consider in terms of media bias here. I think the Washington Times is recognized as biased even farther to the right than, say, the Washington Post and New York Times are to the Left. I'm curious to know what other outlets are reporting this story. I think it's curious that the story is based upon a *blog* about a single polling effort (which also raises questions about a so-called consortium and what that actually is in this case) without reference to anything like peer review for objectivity, accuracy, and whether the polling can be truly considered "scientific". I will say that if what the Washington Times calls evidence is truly worthy of being called evidence, then I will agree the matter is worthy of pursuit.

I don't need to list the walls, fences, etc., that governments have built for centuries to keep some people out and other people in. It seems to me that people who want to cross a border badly enough will find ways. Are there better ways to prevent them? If you think it would be interesting to discuss, let's stipulate that we must protect our borders, and we must take steps to protect against increasing numbers of illegal immigrants. We must deal with the numbers of illegal immigrants that are already here. But let's discuss other ideas that you think would be more effective than a wall (or if you insist, in addition to a wall). And just for productivity sake let's leave out the ideologies, politics, etc. and see if it's possible to focus on the merits of topical ideas. Think of it as approaching the problem similar to the way NASA might approach the problem of rescuing Matt Damon, haha.

I agree with you. I suppose that there are also better ways of apprehending illegal immigrants who are already here and dealing with them on a case basis. I'm under no illusions. This could not be done effectively without increased costs--big time. But I prefer to spend my taxes effectively than with a wall.

Thanks. I read about O. Finneyi, too. Sounds more reasonable to me than to say that they must have evolved all such traits simultaneously.