Biden Crime Family

[Alexis Jacobi]

Beat yourself up, please. But restrainedly.

Then make a point of commenting, intelligently, on the ideas.

[Gary Childress]

Beat yourself up, please. But restrainedly.

I've done that many times. It doesn't seem to help much. Do you think maybe trying another approach might work?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Beat yourself up, please. But restrainedly.

I've done that many times. It doesn't seem to help much. Do you think maybe trying another approach might work?

Oh no, it works. It is important to persevere.

[Gary Childress]

Beat yourself up, please. But restrainedly.

I've done that many times. It doesn't seem to help much. Do you think maybe trying another approach might work?

Oh no, it works. It is important to persevere.

Then for you, my friend. I shall beat myself up with restraint. I'll be back later.

Ciao!

[Gary Childress]

I'm back and feeling more worthless, insignificant, and unimportant than I was at the time I left the forum. I feel like I have sufficiently beat myself up as requested, though not completely. I exercised restraint. It was just for you, AJ.

How have you been in my absence, friend? How's the wife and dinnerware holding up? It was a brief hour and some change in minutes for me. I played a favorite solo computer game that I like to play a lot while I intermittently contemplated whether or not throwing myself off a bridge somewhere would ultimately be to the benefit of humanity. Fortunately, the computer game kept me happy during the process so I didn't go too deep into despair.

Would you like to talk now, AJ? And if so, do I really have to say something intelligent regarding "Replacement Theory" to you or can we talk about other things instead? While you make up your mind on that question I'm going to browse the forum some more and see what else is going on among my other PN friends.

[Alexis Jacobi]

do I really have to say something intelligent regarding "Replacement Theory"

Affirmative

Stop dragging your feet!

[Gary Childress]

do I really have to say something intelligent regarding "Replacement Theory"

Affirmative

Stop dragging your feet!

What sort of intelligent thing would you like me to say about "Replacement Theory"? Can you give me something to start on? (No links. Only interested in your views, not someone else's.)

[Gary Childress]

Wow! The drone of the AC unit here in Florida fills the void of silence as my fingers tap on the keys. Does AJ not wish to discuss "Replacement Theory"? How odd. He responded only a few minutes ago. I could swear that's the topic he wanted me to say something intelligent about. Did he step away or did I say something wrong to scare him off?

Should I put on a straight jacket as he has requested before I start conversing with him? Will he feel safer if I'm "restrained"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Sure, you go do that in whatever skewed way suits you. Meanwhile, the war is in our face. Surely we can have the innate ability to some reasonable degree to discern truth from bullshit, balance from extremism, and right from wrong as we face things in real-time.

If you notice that a given interpretive presentation is “skewed” (you mean biased to some viewpoint) — and you believe that Walker’s orientation (or mine, or IC’s) is such — then you imply that 1) there is a fuller, better, more accurate interpretive picture, and 2) that you can explain it. Yet you don’t.

What is the war that is in our face? How would you describe it?

You say an “innate ability” enables one to distinguish truth from bullshit — but that seems too vague. What is that ability? Is it one that comes through training or is it more like the gift of ESP?

Similarly, distinguishing “right from wrong” is not automatic it seems to me. Therefore, there must exist some sort of ideal paradigm that one refers to.

What paradigm is that?

[Gary Childress]

What paradigm is that?

If you have a paradigm, then what is your paradigm? Nothing is free. You have to share to receive.

[Lacewing]

If you notice that a given interpretive presentation is “skewed” (you mean biased to some viewpoint) — and you believe that Walker’s orientation (or mine, or IC’s) is such — then you imply that 1) there is a fuller, better, more accurate interpretive picture, and 2) that you can explain it. Yet you don’t.

You want me to explain the fuller, balanced picture between conservatism and liberalism. Would you like for me to explain how everything on Earth relies on (and is a product of) balancing too? I thought you were just being argumentative and resistant, but I guess you're actually choosing to be blind... and yes, that accounts for why you say the things you do but I thought there must surely be more breadth you could willingly bring to your perspective.

Same with Walker, but he's on my Ban list now. Some things are just too stupid to continually deal with. I wish him well.

You and I, Alexis, are clearly operating on different channels and we don't have much use for each other's channel. We've tried to explain what we're seeing -- to find some shared understanding -- but it's too laborious to do continually, and it's not really necessary. When I say that something is unbalanced... favoring one side... misrepresenting or excluding the other... I expect that you can see it for yourself if you're being honest. It's right there in front of you: the demonization of 'one side'. I point it out... yet you want me to explain further.

What is the war that is in our face? How would you describe it?

A volatile and divisive political climate that is pitting people against each other by fostering a culture of perpetual lies and extremism while old people hang onto their power in government.

You say an “innate ability” enables one to distinguish truth from bullshit — but that seems too vague. What is that ability? Is it one that comes through training or is it more like the gift of ESP?

A built-in human capability of discernment that's accessible when one isn't serving some sort of master. It's the clarity of mind that has no interfering agenda. Some people are better at it, simply from exercising it regularly, but everyone has the capability if they set aside their 'stories'. Have you ever met someone who you knew was untrustworthy, although you had very little information about them? Or, have you ever just had a sense about which choice you should make, without knowing all the details? Have you ever experienced capabilities in yourself that surprised even you? It might be tempting to think that this is all about you, but it's actually because we humans are tapped into a network that provides more awareness and capability if we choose to use it. This is not only demonstrated continually in countless ways and through countless people (and all collections and systems in nature), but it's what makes sense. We may pretend to be individual agents in a strictly physical world that we claim to know and control... but that is a fantasy. The truth is in our collective nature. Divisiveness is a lie that serves small-minded agendas.

Similarly, distinguishing “right from wrong” is not automatic it seems to me. Therefore, there must exist some sort of ideal paradigm that one refers to.

What paradigm is that?

Explained above.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You want me to explain the fuller, balanced picture between conservatism and liberalism.

Actually I state repeatedly that I hope that you would become more specific and bring your generalizations down to a level where your values and ideals, whatever they are, can better be seen in motion. My critique is that your statements are exceedingly broad.

but I guess you're actually choosing to be blind

Those who you differ with, and who differ with you, are likely not choosing to be blind. That sort of statement/judgment never works. People are, generally speaking, honest in their portrayals of what they value. The differences you and I have are value-based. That is my opinion in any case.

When I say that something is unbalanced... favoring one side... misrepresenting or excluding the other... I expect that you can see it for yourself if you're being honest. It's right there in front of you: the demonization of 'one side'. I point it out... yet you want me to explain further.

I do not get from you that you have a depth-understanding (of what you refer to here) so you send up vast generalizations that sound good to you. To say "something is unbalanced' but to refrain, in the context of a forum of philosophy, from explaining and demonstrating what is unbalanced and why it is unbalanced, and then of course what balance is, is a failing in my book. But I excuse you from dancing to my tune naturally. I express what I'd like to hear from you.

A volatile and divisive political climate that is pitting people against each other by fostering a culture of perpetual lies and extremism while old people hang onto their power in government.

A very very superficial analysis! Supremely general. It is a statement that has no power to convince one way or the other because it remains general and anodyne. Why are politics volatile? Why is there division? You make it sound as if 'the political climate' is an entity that is pitting people against each other. But a more depth understanding is that people are divided for a host of reasons. What reasons? What has happened? Why has it happened? Where is it tending?

A built-in human capability of discernment that's accessible when one isn't serving some sort of master.

That simply cannot be, Lacewing, not as you state it. We are human beings and we are informed by education. Without education we cannot reason well. To reason well requires training. It is not innate. What you seem to propose is that a pure rustic or 'natural man' will see clearly. You say that something is 'built in'. I want to know how you'd back up these statements. I am not convinced that this discernment is built in.

It's the clarity of mind that has no interfering agenda. Some people are better at it, simply from exercising it regularly, but everyone has the capability if they set aside their 'stories'. Have you ever met someone who you knew was untrustworthy, although you had very little information about them? Or, have you ever just had a sense about which choice you should make, without knowing all the details? Have you ever experienced capabilities in yourself that surprised even you? It might be tempting to think that this is all about you, but it's actually because we humans are tapped into a network that provides more awareness and capability if we choose to use it. This is not only demonstrated continually in countless ways and through countless people (and all collections and systems in nature), but it's what makes sense. We may pretend to be individual agents in a strictly physical world that we claim to know and control... but that is a fantasy. The truth is in our collective nature. Divisiveness is a lie that serves small-minded agendas.

It is not that I do not understand what you are saying, and I regret that it seems I am contradicting you for sport (not the case), but though I do understand there are too many caveats that pop up.

In any case *yes* to some of your questions.

[Lacewing]

My critique is that your statements are exceedingly broad.

There are many valuable views from which to see, AJ.

There are countless intelligent and thoughtful people who view and talk in this way that you are saying is 'exceedingly broad', and which you seem to see as inferior and insufficient. Perhaps that is because you don't understand it (in some cases) in the way that you imagine you do. It is unnecessary to physically mentally drill down into things the way you do -- that just happens to be your interest and your way. If you think that is the only way to see and to understand, you are mistaken... and you are essentially elevating the view/methods that you prescribe to as some sort of superior, essential standard.

Can you understand how that doesn't make sense in a Universe of vast capabilities (or are you not aware of that)? You are free to do things in a certain way, and find value from that, but don't turn it into yet another religion that everyone must supposedly adhere to. What is it with men and their self-glorifying religions?

but I guess you're actually choosing to be blind

Those who you differ with, and who differ with you, are likely not choosing to be blind.

I did not say that because we 'differ' -- I was referring to your resistance in acknowledging balance, and maybe that's because you are being served by a particular imbalance. It seems to me that there is a dance going on between many factors and opposites all the time... and the clearest view comes from moderately seeing and representing those dynamics. Clarity and truth do not come from skewing and demonizing which are obviously geared for self-service. I do not know how people could think this is unrecognizable when they do it... so I guess that points to the blindness of their intoxication.

Okay, that's as much as I want to reply to your response, because we are talking on different channels and it's not worth the energy it requires.

[Alexis Jacobi]

a Universe of vast capabilities

Understood.

[mickthinks]

I know you're a busy man, walker, but if you could spare a few seconds to address the questions I put to you here, it would be appreciated.

Key Evidence:
• An interactive timeline of the Biden’s pay for play schemes
• Oversight Committee report revealing the Bidens’ dealings with foreign countries.
• Biden Bank Records Memorandum showing the family created over 20 shell companies
• Key Findings from the IRS Whistleblowers
• Whistleblowers’ transcripts press release and links
• Follow-up letters seeking more transcribed interviews in the wake of the IRS whistleblowers’ explosive testimony
• FBI Form 1023 alleging then-Vice President Joe Biden engaged in a bribery and extortion scheme and ultimately received $5 million from a Burisma executive.

lol Talk about politically motivated charges! Talk about a nothing burger!

Walker, you like to present yourself as a reasonable fair minded guy, so let me ask you:

how many of those terrible acts have the Trump family not been accused of or, indeed, blatantly committed?

And how many has Trump been indicted on or impeached for?