@glitterbag,
Quote:What did you do to get McG's panties in a bunch?
McG and georgeob believe I'm doing propaganda. Neither have differentiated propaganda from advocacy. And neither have thought about the subject enough to recognize that the former is marked by intentional deceits and the latter is not (or as soon as it does, then advocacy becomes propaganda).
Further, because I post a lot, this heightens their feelings or belief that propaganda is what I'm up to.
Then, there's the matter of differing apprehensions of truth. I'll say, for example, that Trump demonstrates almost all of the characteristics of a sociopath, thus he is one. That's an unacceptable conclusion for both of them. Obviously, it would be fair for either of them to contest my conclusion but to do so effectively they would have to study the condition, forward their reference materials and make a sound case that I have it wrong. I have studied psychopathology of this sort (though I'm surely no expert) and I've linked the reference materials I've used.
Or for another example, I'll make the claim that American conservatism and the GOP have been profoundly changed and corrupted by particular individuals and ideas that have readily traceable origins and effects. But that's a complex historical and ideological tale which, again, leads to conclusions neither are willing to accept even given that I've put a lot of study into this subject. Of course, many people study some issue and arrive at erroneous conclusions so one ought to be available for correction. But mere assertions that I have something wrong, which is what I normally get in response, just aren't convincing.
But what the hell. In my way, I like both these guys and I will staunchly defend them in the event someone suggests that either is not smarter than any bag of hammers even those really good ones made in Switzerland.
