Get vaccinated!

vu84v2 · July 26, 2021, 09:28:46 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 26, 2021, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: JBC1824 on July 26, 2021, 07:59:13 PMNo one thinks individual posters' posts here represent the views of Valparaiso University. Give me a break.

All I know is YOU, JBC1824, do a lot of telling people what they are exactly thinking and I don't know how you always know what everybody else is thinking and that can be a dangerous thing. I think you should stop right now or face some consequences. YOU, do not suddenly own this message board.

bbts - That fundamentally hits the nail on the head. I know that I do not own this message board - but want it to reflect Valparaiso University as a community that welcomes people of all political persuasions (and would prefer that everybody refrain from political posts). wh, JBC1824, and JustSayin seem to lack that level of maturity. Instead, they want to extend Steve Bannon's premise that you fight your assumed enemy by flooding the zone with sh%t (notice that Bannon had no regard for validity).

wh · July 26, 2021, 10:08:50 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 08:39:55 PM
Quote from: wh on July 26, 2021, 07:49:10 PM
Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

There's nothing about these posts that the 55-60% of legal voters who voted for President Trump wouldn't agree with. They are grassroots, mainstream views.

This is the type of complete BS that I was referrring to. Heck, Fox News wouldn't even report this level of BS. But regardless, you nor I speak for the university.

And as I stated before, January 20, 2025 is the first day that Donald Trump can be President again. You can state all the lies and BS that Donald Trump spews, but nothing will change that fact. I hope that you find a way to mentally cope with reality.

Fox News organization has a major credibility problem with conservatives. Little head pats from people like you just adds fuel to the fire.

vu84v2 · July 26, 2021, 10:27:11 PM

Or perhaps many conservatives reject credible reporting if it conflicts with their desired narrative/outcome. They also reject court rulings by judges of all political persuasions that conflict with their desired narrative/outcomes or Republican elected officials who have a moral compass.

bbtds · July 27, 2021, 02:14:12 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 26, 2021, 07:59:13 PMThus, I have asserted nothing that could could reasonably be characterized as a conspiracy theory.

So again, vu84v2 is hardly ever right about anything, but always insists on saying something.

The rate of his assertions being proven incorrect is surpassed only by that of bbtds.

YOU, JBC1824, need to stop this now. YOU are only trying to inflate your own ego. Stop telling us what we think! And making personal insults. It doesn't help your credibility at all.

JBC1824 · July 27, 2021, 07:59:13 AM

Vu84v2,

I never suggested we should not "trust" the vaccines, only that a degree of caution should be exercised. Your story about having played a round of golf with a Pfizer rep is irrelevant.

Please explain to me as best you can which of the posts I have made explicitly pushes a conspiracy theory. I did not say 55-60% of voters voted for Trump, mind you.

And you, yourself, would seem to struggle with welcoming people of all political persuasions, as you have repeatedly called for the political discussion here to be quashed. If you were welcoming of the expression of diverging viewpoints, why would you want the discussion to stop?

Maturity? Representing one's political views in a public space has absolutely nothing to do with maturity or immaturity. I would however suggest that it is a bit immature that you would continue to assert things to be true on a public forum that are not, such as you having characterized posts I have made as conspiracy theories. Again, please point out to me which posts.

JBC1824 · July 27, 2021, 08:01:23 AM

Bbtds,

Here's another little thinking exercise for you:

Do you believe the posts on this forum are representative of Valparaiso University's official viewpoints? Vu84v2 is on record as having said they are not. I obviously don't believe they are. So who exactly is it that we are to understand believes this? Can you point to one instance of someone having made a post on this forum indicating that this is their belief? Tons of posts have been made, but I have yet to see a single one that would indicate this.

What exactly are you suggesting when you say I will "face some consequences?" I must insist that you explain yourself further. You have made a very general statement that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening.

I have not claimed to own this message board, nor do I believe this to be the case. But wait! Excuse me, bbtds, I thought telling people what they are thinking can be "dangerous" and is deserving of "consequences?"

Again, you are committing the gravest of sins: telling someone else what they think! I readily admit that I enjoy being right. This is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, my primary motivation for going on as I do is that I thoroughly enjoy researching topics and developing arguments. Doing this allows me to become better informed on important matters and is excellent mental exercise.

And why should I or anyone else not point out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they repeatedly make false assertions? Take the time to know what you are talking about, and only say things you know to be true. Otherwise, you should very reasonably expect to receive some blowback.

vu84v2 · July 27, 2021, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 27, 2021, 07:59:13 AM
Vu84v2,

I never suggested we should not "trust" the vaccines, only that a degree of caution should be exercised. Your story about having played a round of golf with a Pfizer rep is irrelevant.

Please explain to me as best you can which of the posts I have made explicitly pushes a conspiracy theory. I did not say 55-60% of voters voted for Trump, mind you.

And you, yourself, would seem to struggle with welcoming people of all political persuasions, as you have repeatedly called for the political discussion here to be quashed. If you were welcoming of the expression of diverging viewpoints, why would you want the discussion to stop?

Maturity? Representing one's political views in a public space has absolutely nothing to do with maturity or immaturity. I would however suggest that it is a bit immature that you would continue to assert things to be true on a public forum that are not, such as you having characterized posts I have made as conspiracy theories. Again, please point out to me which posts.

JBC1824 - Fair questions...so let me try to answer:

-You make a good point that you have not said that people should not trust the vaccines, but you have stated that pharmaceutical companies themselves are not trustworthy. Admittedly, this was with some good justification, but I wondered if I was reading a post from a socialist advocating for government control of companies.
-I agree that my encounter with a Pfizer rep is not very relevant - though it was interesting to talk to someone with one of the vaccine companies who also had connections to a Valpo basketball issue. The point that I guess I was trying to make is that it says something for vaccine safety if the company's employees take the vaccine.
-While I am not going to go back and review every post, I do not recall you personally posting any conspiracy theories. I do think that some of the information that you have posted has been used by others (not here) to try to justify conspiracy theories - but that, of course, is not on you.
-However, JustSayin and wh have posted conspiracy theories. The "55-60%" comment is directly from wh.

Now the last topic of posting political comments on this web site. First, you once claimed that I initiated political discussions on here - but that is not true and I challenged you to find any cases where I did. I intentionally avoid doing so.

Why do I get concerned about there being a litany of political and subsequently vitriolic posts on this web site? 1. It is the top discussion web site on Valpo's marquee sport. 2. If you do a Valparaiso University related search, this site comes up as one of the highest ranked results. For example, the following are this web sites's rank when I search on the various criteria: Valparaiso University Sports (15th), Valparaiso University Chat Room (8th), Valparaiso University Forum (1st). Potential students and their parents can come across all of these political posts and develop impressions of the university which are not true.

Do I feel that someone (the administrator) should quash posting all of this political material? No, and you will never find me saying that in any of my posts. I realize that this is unrealistic, but I would hope that people can act like adults and avoid posting things that they may agree with, but paint Valpo as anything other than welcoming people from all political persuasions. Given that my hopes are unrealistic because wh, JustSayin, and (to a lesser degree) you cannot restrain yourselves from all of the political posting, I find myself with the highly undesirable task of trying to make sure that discussions look balanced (and as I have stated before, I have far better things to do - so I am not going to go and spend hours researching some topics). The best environment for a university is one in which all views are welcome and respected and posting that any groups (liberals, conservatives, independents/moderates) are evil, unwelcome, etc. does not promote that environment.

Have I felt that there have been posts that should be removed? Yes, but these are specific to several posts over the last several years from wh that are grossly sexist (see his recent post about women as leaders) and racist (see his posts from several years ago regarding muslims).

JBC1824 · July 27, 2021, 11:18:08 AM

Vu84v2,

I really don't understand why anyone would believe I am advocating for socialism. You are also evidently confusing socialism with communism. Socialism does not entail government control, but instead community control. Communism is when the state or government exerts control.

What I am advocating for is honest and reasonable oversight from our government, apart from the corrupting influence of hundreds of millions of lobbying dollars spent on a yearly basis.

For example, a more sincere effort being made to investigate conflicts of interest for experts sitting on FDA advisory committees, such as that exemplified by the EMA in Europe.

I'm also advocating for the pharmaceutical industry to no longer be responsible for funding 75% of the FDA's operations related to drug approval.

And I'm advocating for an overall situation which does not leave us in the current predicament we are in where each new drug that receives FDA approval is twice as likely to cause significant harm as significant benefit to people taking it. How truly insane this is cannot be overstated.

So is any of what I am advocating for in any way unreasonable?

I don't necessarily agree with your point that pharmaceutical industry employees willingly taking an industry product is suggestive of this product's safety. As we have seen, the medical literature has been corrupted, and thus, not even doctors can be expected to discern between truth and untruth. How are we to then expect industry employees to be able to do so? Of course some will know what the truth is, but I would suspect most won't.

Then you should not have suggested I did post conspiracy theories.

I don't believe I have claimed that you initiated political discussion, only that you readily entered into it. There is a difference.

Again, I have not seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, that would suggest to me that people are confusing individual posts here with the university's official viewpoints. Furthermore, the political posts I have made here represent only mainstream conservative viewpoints and are very often matter of fact material.

I agree that you do not necessarily wish that an administrator would quash our political postings, but instead you wish we would do this ourselves. Have you not implored all of us to stop of our own accords?

Listen, man. Free speech is incredibly important. Anywhere that free speech flourishes is a treasure, including here. We have hashed out a lot of crap and arrived at some truths that are very important to understand. I have learned a lot, and I hope others have, too.

It is a shame you don't have the time to research things. Perhaps if this were the case, you would be correct more often.

I have not said or suggested that liberals are evil, unwelcome, etc., only that they are wrong and very demonstrably so.

I agree that wh's posts about women in leadership roles could reasonably be thought of as being sexist. And I was critical of him for this.

First, Islam is a religion and not a race. I'm curious what wh may have said about muslims that you believe is prejudiced? Where can I find these comments if they have not been removed?

Just Sayin · July 28, 2021, 06:31:43 AM

84:

QuoteI find myself with the highly undesirable task of trying to make sure that discussions look balanced

Arrogant and condescending remark. How progressive of you.
Who appointed you The Guardian of Woke?

vu84v2 · July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM

JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

vu84v2 · July 28, 2021, 07:18:53 AM

Yes...I realize that Islam is not a race, but a religion Nonetheless, here is one of the vile posts from wh (see thread started in December, 2015).

wh said: How incredibly weak we have become as Americans that we placate a minority of people with a vile, bigoted, fundamentally evil belief system. It makes me feel dirty just contemplating it.

And another from a thread in November, 2015 (in reference to discussions on the Paris terrorist attacks)

wh said: At times like this I like to think back to happier times - when the world was at peace and "Islam" was just a religion and not a Satanic geo-political force hell-bent on destroying mankind and ushering in the Anti-Christ.

Just Sayin · July 28, 2021, 07:30:41 AM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

Just Sayin · July 28, 2021, 07:46:12 AM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:18:53 AM
Yes...I realize that Islam is not a race, but a religion Nonetheless, here is one of the vile posts from wh (see thread started in December, 2015).

wh said: How incredibly weak we have become as Americans that we placate a minority of people with a vile, bigoted, fundamentally evil belief system. It makes me feel dirty just contemplating it.

And another from a thread in November, 2015 (in reference to discussions on the Paris terrorist attacks)

wh said: At times like this I like to think back to happier times - when the world was at peace and "Islam" was just a religion and not a Satanic geo-political force hell-bent on destroying mankind and ushering in the Anti-Christ.

If you think someone's post is sexist or islamaphobic, the appropriate response is not to censor it but to allow it to remain so that it can shine as an example for everyone to see and to make up their own mind whether they agree with you. If a post is truly as vile as you think it is, it seems important for everyone to know who the culprit is rather than to shut down free speech. Free speech is not always pretty and we don't need do-gooder liberals like you arbitrarily deciding what speech is correct and what speech is incorrect. That's arrogant and condescending and as is typical throughout history with people like you on the left, tyrannical.

vu84v2 · July 28, 2021, 07:55:58 AM

Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

It is funny how, for you, discuss means posting endless 'copy and pastes' from far right wing web sites. To his or her credit, JBC1824 discusses and builds arguments - albeit arguments that often use sources in which he or she agrees (confirmation bias).

It is also funny how you did not respond to my questions regarding your affiliation with the university. Your responses to any questions seem to always be insults rather than intelligent responses.

vu84v2 · July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM

I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

Just Sayin · July 28, 2021, 08:56:57 AM

Blah, blah, blah.

Back on ignore.

vu84v2 · July 28, 2021, 09:06:57 AM

Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 08:56:57 AM
Blah, blah, blah.

Back on ignore.

I guess that you are not capable of responding to arguments that free speech requires responsibility and accountability.

crusader05 · July 28, 2021, 09:30:29 AM

Just popping in to reenforce that looking at VAERS Data as evidence of anything is not a good idea.

It's a wide net that collects everything that then gets weeded through. It's the like FBI Tip Line, A lot of noise, little signal. Every time someone who has recently gotten a vaccine has another medical issue shortly after it can get entered BUT we don't know their medical history or just the prevalence rate. Like for instance, if we know that X Medical issue has an occurrence rate of a certain amount of times in a certain population we would expect that a certain amount of people in that population who got the vaccine to have that occur. You have to look for medical instances that are abnormal for that population/health condition or occurring at higher than average rate that would be expected.

valpopal · July 28, 2021, 10:54:27 AM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

Since I often focus on the First Amendment as a priority and criticize five fields—government, newspapers, network news, social media, and academia—for falling short in supporting free speech or for sometimes actively undermining this principle, I want to be positive this time and compliment the message board's administration for thus far honoring free speech by those expressing opinions across an entire spectrum of politics or philosophies. The leeway given posters on this board would be difficult to maintain in the current atmosphere at many organizations or institutions representing the five fields mentioned above.

JBC1824 · July 28, 2021, 07:06:51 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:55:58 AM
Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 07:30:41 AM
Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

It is funny how, for you, discuss means posting endless 'copy and pastes' from far right wing web sites. To his or her credit, JBC1824 discusses and builds arguments - albeit arguments that often use sources in which he or she agrees (confirmation bias).

It is also funny how you did not respond to my questions regarding your affiliation with the university. Your responses to any questions seem to always be insults rather than intelligent responses.

I almost laughed out loud.

To say the sources I have used when building my arguments are suggestive of confirmation bias is nonsense.

And if you believe I'm mistaken, please point out to me which of these sources is evidence of my confirmation bias.

For example, was it confirmation bias for me to bring up the U.S. Justice Department's records illustrating the Wall Street Journal has accepted millions of dollars from the official propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party?

Was it confirmation bias for me to reference the specifics of the The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which you incorrectly characterized as mostly benefiting the wealthy?

Was it confirmation bias to recount the facts related to the progression of hostilities between the U.S. and North Korea, the subsequent cooling of tensions, and then the following facts as objective indicators of the beneficial results of Trump's handling of the situation:

"Since this normalization in relations between the U.S. and North Korea, North Korea has not test-launched another ICBM; it has not conducted additional nuclear weapons testing; it has not fired additional test missiles over the Japanese archipelago, terrorizing the Japanese; North Korea released the three American detainees it held; and North Korea has refrained from explicitly threatening The United States."

Was it confirmation bias to accurately report the results of a study conducted by a professor associated with Harvard University's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, a law professor and someone with no "skin in the game," published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics revealing that over recent decades one in five drugs approved by the FDA resulted in serious harm to patients while only one in ten provided significant benefit?

Or was it confirmation bias for me to suggest that one of if not the most comprehensive study to date evaluating Ivermectin for the treatment covid patients, which is a published, peer-reviewed study, a meta-analysis based solely on randomized controlled trials ("the gold standard for research,") that demonstrates a clear benefit to covid patients, is indeed evidence for the effectiveness of Ivermectin?

Perhaps you would have also liked for me to cite maybe the second largest study on the topic, only slightly smaller in terms of overall patients, also a meta-analysis, and published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases, which is publishing product of Oxford University Press. This study also demonstrated a clear benefit to Ivermectin's use in treating patients with covid.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214

You would seem to believe there are sources just as credible and matter of fact as some of those I have cited, which would refute or at the very least sufficiently counter the points I have made. This is of course not true.

The sources and types of information I have utilized in making my arguments are truly some of the most factual, credible, non-partisan, unbiased, etc. that were relevant and available. That you have apparently not understood this speaks volumes.

Your banal, surface-level commentary does little to advance the discussions on this forum aside from, with few exceptions, portraying false premises for other posters to then argue against and correct.

For goodness sakes, you did not know the difference between socialism and communism.

You are a pretender.

JBC1824 · July 28, 2021, 07:18:41 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

There are important limitations to free speech that have been determined by Supreme Court rulings.

These do not and should not include perceived anonymity and perceived responsibility in any context, let alone any place which intentionally functions as public forum for commentary, expression of ideas, and debate.

Posters on this forum are more accountable than your comments acknowledge. I routinely take into consideration the potential consequences associated with the things I write. For one, the moderators of this forum reserve the right to censor individual posts as well as posters.

And if I were to post something beyond the pale, I am confident my IP address would very easily be tracked by police departments, etc., to identify me and hold me accountable according to the law.

Then, there is the possibility that another poster could find him or herself motivated to somehow discover my personal information, do harm to me, and/or "dox" me. It is not in anyway unreasonable to think that in certain instances the average person could discover the personal information of posters on this forum based on the information available here. Trust me.

You are using sloppy and largely misleading language when you say this forum "represents" the university in the way you mean this. It would be far more accurate to say this forum, or the comments posted here, are partially reflective of the university's community's views. Again, this forum operates independent of the university, and thus, the university specific "environment" does not extend so far as to include the forum.

It is also incorrect to suggest this forum's environment in any way has condoned sexism, islamaphobia, etc. An individual poster's posts do not necessarily represent the overall forum environment. You must consider how wh's posts were received by the forum community. I would guess they were not received well at all, as was the case with his sexist posts. Thus, the environment would seemingly have done the exact opposite of condone these things.

As for wh's comments specifically, I believe they likely undermined any intent he may have had to raise concerns about Islam in one form or another.

However, absolutely everyone should take the time to read the Quran, and in my opinion pay particularly close attention when reading chapters eight and nine. Then, you can come to your own conclusions. I will refrain from quoting any of its passages here.

I will only add the Quran is very different from the Bible.

As long as all can be respectful, you say?

Was it respectful when you first applied wh's little Valpo purity test to Just Sayin, something which you thought was below-the-belt when wh did it?

Was it respectful the second time you did it?

And was it terribly respectful when you called Just Sayin's overall viewpoint "exceedingly narrow-minded?"

You obviously struggle to follow your own rules at times, vu84v2.

wh · July 28, 2021, 11:51:07 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

You are casting aspersions based on a flawed set of criteria. For example, the comment I made contrasting male and female CEO effectiveness was a paraphrase from Jordan Peterson's comments from an interview with a radical feminist journalist. I have included it to hopefully raise your awareness level high enough to have an intelligent discussion. His argument is fact based. If you disagree with it, present facts that counter it. That's how honest debate works.

Here's how honest debate doesn't work - using deflection psychology (e.g., calling me a bigot or conspiracy theorist), done not to dispute my point, but to assassinate my character. Secondly, you are not the arbiter of truth. You are the arbiter of "your truth," as leftists like to say. Leftist truth lives in shifting sand. It's more radical than it was even 10 years ago, and it will be more radical yet 10 years from now. It is agenda laden truth, as defined by those who see the United States as fundamentally unfair and hopelessly flawed. Their goal is not to build on success of a great nation, but to burn the house down and start over with a much better foundation - Marxism.

"Shifting sand" truth is fully in place in our university system and is slowly but surely replacing traditional truth in K-12. One time students, mesmerized by the subtle allure of Marxist ideology, now control the media, the education system, Hollywood, big tech, government, even big business. Whole segments of the population have been radicalized through Marxist-based degree programs like gender studies.

As a conservative who sees our nation as the greatest in the history of the world, a nation that has worked hard to overcome the evils of its past long before the principles of Marxism became mainstream, I reject "shifting sand" truth. I embrace traditional truth as defined Biblically and established in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Finally, and I do mean finally, you labeling me as a bigot according to "your truth" is in itself a Marxist tactic as defined in Rule No.13, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Apology accepted.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&feature=share