Matt Allison Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: “The Republican gubernatorial nominee in Michigan invoked a conspiracy that the Covid-19 pandemic and protests in the summer of 2020 after the killing of George Floyd were part of a decades-long plan by the Democratic Party to “topple” the United States as retaliation for losing the US Civil War, adding that the party wanted to enslave people “again.” She belongs in a straitjacket, not on a ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 10 hours ago, Chris Barnard said: I would like to see Maté and Peterson have a long form discussion. I respect Maté, he is very bright, I have listened to a lot of his stuff, “scattered minds” is very interesting, though I am somewhere between him and Thom Hartmann on the topic of ADHD, which is another fascinating debate. Listening to that clip and his interpretation of Peterson; I think we see tremendous frustration in Peterson, because he can see the end of the west, and feels to a degree that he has Cassandra’s curse. He has explained in detail what happened in the lead up to WW2, how states fell into communism and fascism, which all amount to tyranny. If you could see all of the conditions in place for that to happen again and nobody was listening, just proceeding with abandoning democratic fundamentals like free speech and the rights of the individual, then I think at some stage frustration could veer on range. Peterson is emotional, its what makes him human and relatable. We are in a time when the spirit of men is being crushed, they have an identity crisis, they don’t have a purpose, suicides and addiction is off the scale and he can see an opposition pouring fuel on that fire every day. He is rallying against that, at a time when every man is being cast as a Harvey Weinstein or worse. He is entitled to frustration toward all of these people who resent or hate humanity, and dress it up as compassion. We do see a lot of that today. As for children, he has written in great detail about infants and states that if you don’t get things right at a very young age, say 3-7, then you end up with a dysfunctional of malevolent adult. He has called them litter monsters and pointed out that you see all of that in children's play groups, including tyrants, bullies etc. His mantra is that you need to fix that very early if you want a well put together adult by 18 years of age. He does call them little monsters, Maté shouldn’t mischaracterise that as an ill feeling toward children or a rage. I don’t know Peterson’s children personally but, he has two and they seem very well put together, and also very loved. I am not sure there are any grounds for this particular line with Maté. Peterson has done hundreds of hours observing child behaviour, if not more. I understand where Maté is coming from, as his view is all about trauma and healing it. He thinks Peterson is somehow causing trauma but, is that a misunderstanding. You could argue that any time you ask a child to do something that they don’t want to do, this could cause trauma. We could never ask a child to do something that they don’t want to do and see what the outcome is? We can see it everywhere in the world. It isn’t good. I think this opens up a wider conversation as to whether classical (Pavlov) and operant conditioning (Skinner) should be used? I can certainly see it misused, certainly in compulsory schooling and the workplace where a punishment vs reward system is implemented subtly all the time. Maté here rightly points out that religion, as well as that radical left today is also underpinned by collectivism. The ideology that took us into religious persecution, nationalism, fascism, communism and all kinds of totalitarian horrors. Is Maté making a simplistic argument here? I’ll explain why I think its misunderstood. I interpret Peterson is suggesting the best outcome is when there is balance between the individuals rights and the group. If we skew either way, the outcome isn’t good at all. Peterson is espousing that the 10 commandments of Judaeo Christian values have played a huge part in achieving civilisation, good conditions for us to live in. Religion is largely responsible for the set of rules that underpins our legal frameworks. My interpretation is that despite the way that religion has been used malevolently, it will be better to have it as a foundation in society, than in a society without it, where there is then a spiritual void that causes a society to look to big government as their guiding force. Nietzsche more or less predicted the disasters of the twentieth century with what he called the “death of god.” Society abandoned belief, the Prussian style education system taught obedience and conformity, and the spiritual void was filled by dictators and despots. The more I read of psychology, the more I see how vulnerable the human mind is, and how group behaviour works. I had a catholic education, I am not religious or god believing. I am open minded and very much an individual in my thinking. At seems to me at this juncture that it may be a case of better the devil you know regarding faith. As the future as it looks right now without the 10 commandments takes us to Huxley, followed by Orwell. I think Maté potentially misunderstands Peterson when he does his biblical allegorical interpretations. If anything it shows how clever the writing was. Maté of course is no stranger to tyranny but, who understands it better and how it comes about? Collectivism is the mechanism, when we diminish the rights of the individual, you set in place the conditions for some of the worst things that humankind has seen. I have mentioned that I like Maté and respect him but, he eludes that Peterson is indulging in conspiracy theories here. Peterson has worked in academia, he has seen first hand how the social sciences have been corrupted. Is that a conspiracy theory? Is it strange that one generation thinks completely differently to the next? Is that accidental or a convergence of many variables? Or is academia/schooling responsible? I’ll make a point; it wasn’t the poopoo’s who organised and ordered the burning of books, it was the students. In conclusion, Maté may be right about repressed range on some level, but, I think he is missing a trick here on the way be are headed and what is happening before his eyes. IMHO Peterson is desperate to avoid a catastrophe for humanity, and is speaking up. Cheers Chris PS I haven’t read this back, you’ll all have to live with the typos and grammatical errors. Short of time today. Thanks for that reply, Chris. It may be that, like Kirk, I have passed that stage in life where one has formed a personal “philosophy” by which one views the world and everything in it, and Jordan Peterson came to my attention too late. Or maybe I’ve just turned into an old curmudgeon. I’m more concerned with right vs wrong than right vs left, and I don’t need JP or anyone else to tell me what’s right and wrong. I agree with JP on some things and not on others. The main problem I have with him is that his criticisms of our socio-political world today are too concerned with its excesses and aberrations and not enough with its inherent flaws. His endorsement of capitalism and organised religion overlooks the fact that it is they which led to where we are today. Gabor Maté’s comments about JP giving religion but not Marxism a free pass seem valid to me, as does Christopher Hitchen’s critique of religion. British philosopher AJ Ayer’s severe criticism of the core dogma of Christianity, redemption by substitutionary sacrifice (scapegoating), also seems valid. Since capitalism has been the dominant global ideology for centuries, one must objectively and critically scrutinise capitalism in order to ascertain what’s wrong with it and how it helped cause the mess we’re in today. JP doesn’t do this. (In this regard one must bear in mind that capitalism begot communism as a reaction to it, and that the frisson between those two in turn begot fascism.) He is thus authoritarian on these important issues. However, he is anti-authoritarian on other issues such as covid and identity politics. That’s why I agree with some of his views and not others – I am anti-authoritarian in all respects. In other words, I think for myself. I should clarify that the most useful definition of “authoritarian” is the presumed infallibility of authority figures or, colloquially, “the bosses are always right”. According to that definition, every right-thinking person should be anti-authoritarian. That may be the only way out of the quagmire we’re in. JP therefore, in my view, doesn’t have a coherent “philosophy”, and I think that may have been a factor in his mental breakdown (not to mention his all-meat diet). I don’t accept the notion of congenital mental illness, and even the foremost global authority on this, the American Psychiatric Association, has admitted that no biomarkers have been found for mental illness. The fact that he adopted a pharmaceutical approach in this regard also doesn’t impress me. I’m informed in my thinking on this by my reading of Carl Jung, James Hillman, Thomas Szasz, Dr Terry Lynch (whom I know personally) and others. (Notwithstanding that, I very much appreciate what you said to Kirk about your helping people with mental health problems and related matters.) As a vegan, I find it hard to reconcile JP’s all-meat diet with the claim that he is an exemplar of compassion, given the literal meaning of that word. For that reason, I also think he has little or nothing to offer by way of a solution to the ecocide which is the single greatest existential threat to humanity. One can argue that global warming is a myth (JP’s lack of relevant scientific qualifications hasn’t stopped him from pontificating about this), but there’s no denying that the human species is destroying the biosphere at an alarming rate. For this reason, I utterly reject JP’s claim that human overpopulation is not a problem. JP’s anthropocentrism in this regard smacks of the hubris of western “civilisation” which Carl Jung denounced. As the ancient Greeks believed, hubris precedes nemesis, and Gaia, not humanity, may have the last word on that. JP seems to have become a kind of messiah for many young men (I don’t mean you) but that idolatry is itself a symptom of what’s wrong with our world and not a solution. So all in all, Chris, we may have to agree to disagree about Dr Peterson. Keep her lit, as they say in these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 Russia pumping millions into US-based propaganda outlets - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said: Russia pumping millions into US-based propaganda outlets - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism This should be watched. But...I think millions of dollars are spent now on every Congressional race, while the huge and dominant M$M is totally pro-US establishment on steroids. Moreover, the CIA has co-opted formerly independent news outlets, such as Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, Insider, and so on. If the Russians can tilt Americans for a few million dollars...then we should study carefully their methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 29 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: If the Russians can tilt Americans for a few million dollars...then we should study carefully their methods. It's not particularly complex; they lie. About everything. And Roy Cohn taught the exact same technique to Donald Trump, decades ago. "A lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 It's Happening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 Former Moscow Station CIA Chief: Why I Believe Rogue CIA Agents Killed Kennedy | Breaking Points This is a really good regular news show...and as you can see, willing to have a take on the JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 That fellow might have been mentioned here before; I'm not sure https://www.swtimes.com/story/news/crime/2020/05/25/are-there-cia-connections-to-lee-oswald-part-1/113744782/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, John Cotter said: Thanks for that reply, Chris. It may be that, like Kirk, I have passed that stage in life where one has formed a personal “philosophy” by which one views the world and everything in it, and Jordan Peterson came to my attention too late. Or maybe I’ve just turned into an old curmudgeon. I’m more concerned with right vs wrong than right vs left, and I don’t need JP or anyone else to tell me what’s right and wrong. I agree with JP on some things and not on others. The main problem I have with him is that his criticisms of our socio-political world today are too concerned with its excesses and aberrations and not enough with its inherent flaws. His endorsement of capitalism and organised religion overlooks the fact that it is they which led to where we are today. Gabor Maté’s comments about JP giving religion but not Marxism a free pass seem valid to me, as does Christopher Hitchen’s critique of religion. British philosopher AJ Ayer’s severe criticism of the core dogma of Christianity, redemption by substitutionary sacrifice (scapegoating), also seems valid. Since capitalism has been the dominant global ideology for centuries, one must objectively and critically scrutinise capitalism in order to ascertain what’s wrong with it and how it helped cause the mess we’re in today. JP doesn’t do this. (In this regard one must bear in mind that capitalism begot communism as a reaction to it, and that the frisson between those two in turn begot fascism.) He is thus authoritarian on these important issues. However, he is anti-authoritarian on other issues such as covid and identity politics. That’s why I agree with some of his views and not others – I am anti-authoritarian in all respects. In other words, I think for myself. I should clarify that the most useful definition of “authoritarian” is the presumed infallibility of authority figures or, colloquially, “the bosses are always right”. According to that definition, every right-thinking person should be anti-authoritarian. That may be the only way out of the quagmire we’re in. JP therefore, in my view, doesn’t have a coherent “philosophy”, and I think that may have been a factor in his mental breakdown (not to mention his all-meat diet). I don’t accept the notion of congenital mental illness, and even the foremost global authority on this, the American Psychiatric Association, has admitted that no biomarkers have been found for mental illness. The fact that he adopted a pharmaceutical approach in this regard also doesn’t impress me. I’m informed in my thinking on this by my reading of Carl Jung, James Hillman, Thomas Szasz, Dr Terry Lynch (whom I know personally) and others. (Notwithstanding that, I very much appreciate what you said to Kirk about your helping people with mental health problems and related matters.) As a vegan, I find it hard to reconcile JP’s all-meat diet with the claim that he is an exemplar of compassion, given the literal meaning of that word. For that reason, I also think he has little or nothing to offer by way of a solution to the ecocide which is the single greatest existential threat to humanity. One can argue that global warming is a myth (JP’s lack of relevant scientific qualifications hasn’t stopped him from pontificating about this), but there’s no denying that the human species is destroying the biosphere at an alarming rate. For this reason, I utterly reject JP’s claim that human overpopulation is not a problem. JP’s anthropocentrism in this regard smacks of the hubris of western “civilisation” which Carl Jung denounced. As the ancient Greeks believed, hubris precedes nemesis, and Gaia, not humanity, may have the last word on that. JP seems to have become a kind of messiah for many young men (I don’t mean you) but that idolatry is itself a symptom of what’s wrong with our world and not a solution. So all in all, Chris, we may have to agree to disagree about Dr Peterson. Keep her lit, as they say in these parts. Thanks, John. Great, well thought out reply. I'll try and work through this i order with my thoughts. I sense we may get into even broader topics. I am just over 40, I don't know if my views will be caste at some stage or whether I'll stay open until my last days. My comments to Kirk were really about my own father and his mind. He was very much set in stone for a long time. Where I critique my own father a little is that the simple cliches like "make your bed in the morning", "people need such little encouragement but they need some", "do not cast pearls before swine" and many others may be conventional wisdom but, its wisdom that needs remembering, refreshing and working at for our whole lives. We all slip at times. Perhaps much of what JP does is remind those who are off course that they are needed. Big tech and MSM propaganda, as well as schooling is putting people of all ages on a bad trajectory. It frustrated me when my father initially rejected Peterson that I could see there was so much for Dad to learn still but, he rejected learning. Perhaps ego is the biggest factor, being an elder in society and assuming the role of the chief or wise old owl. I am certain I have a very different personality to my father and set of tools. Again, perhaps I am unfair as I can't see him at 30 or 35 and how powerful his processing and thoughts were then. I obviously have the tremendous good fortune to have the internet, podcasts, and vastly more information than he did at his peak. The teaching of an old dog new tricks is another cliche but, I know folk from his generation who never stopped learning and reading until their mid 90's. Edward Bernay's for all his sins, was still running is PR practice at 99 years of age, his, mind still very sharp, processing information. Its why I am trying to look after my mind. It's hard for me to judge perhaps half way through my life, as I have no idea how I'll feel at 80 or what my appetite will be. I think with JP, the right v left thing has become the battlefront in interviews. As I have expressed here, I think right v left is just a way to sort us into tribes, its entirely redundant now. As if we take the parties, they are occupying entirely different positions to 60 years ago and we still classify them the same way, nobody noticed they moved as it happened incrementally, and in unison. What's so difficult for JP is that every interviewer makes the discussion about the same things, the controversial points, which puts him on the defensive and the outcome is that we get a lot of the same sound bytes. I think he is very wary of veering off script in such conversations as when he has, instead of being taken in context, its used as a stick to beat him with. FYi I like the thoughts of Thomas Szasz but, if we put him on talk shows today talking about the myth of mental illness, he would be caste as every bit the pariah that Peterson is. Its tough out there as interviewers play identity politics, sorting us into tribes, one side of the other. Which I have stated my theory before that it is part of divide and rule strategy, as the origins are in government and academia, with MSM whipping up the storm of agitation. Where I disagreed with JP most of all was during his ill period. He couldn't see what was happening and wasn't speaking up. As he got better he began to voice about the authoritarian diktats. To me, there are some things that he just doesn't see, or didn't tackle because of the lack of evidence or proof, despite multiple things converging in front of our eyes. As for capitalism and organised religion taking us to where we are today, I feel like its hard to be objective on the topic as we have no comparison without it, and dominance hierarchies that predate the systems are intrinsically linked. I like democracy as a core system in its rawest form (Solon), and much less so much representative democracy. It seems very unclear to me whether its a distortion of the system that yields the result or the system itself, because the human element leads to corruption. The same argument is made about socialism and other systems too. ie we've never seen it working properly. As for religion, I spent most of my life criticising it at every opportunity, that was my fathers position too, his most critical moment was when a priest said something to him something like; if you don't have your boy christened he'll be burned in the fires of hell. People like Stephen Fry has asked the question; what kind of a god creates a parasite that goes into the eyes of children making them blind? I could see very clearly from a youngish age how religion had been used to coerce the masses, people on both sides of conflicts believed in god and believed that god was on their side. It's been very dangerous. Is this the misuse, the human element? I question what would happen in the developing world is there was no faith? Those poor desperate people born with nothing, watching all kinds of horrors, facing starvation, ravished with disease and trauma, where would they be without faith? What would keen them going? I don't have the answers on this. Perhaps if Peterson did do some pieces making the case both ways he would seem more balanced. Though he doesn't disclose it; I suspect faith is important to him, dear to him, and that creates a bias. It separates him, and you and I. One thing is certain to me; I don't need faith/religion, or spiritually to believe in something higher? If I do personality tests I always come out as a 'leader' or 'independent' type. Its unclear to me whether other people might need something when I don't. God has been their leader, and now its party. Its also unclear to me whether conscience is taught or innate. I watch animal behaviour a lot and for the most part I don't see much of it. Without the 10 commandments or the legal; framework of rules that sprang from them, would there be just a survival of the fittest mentality? I can't possibly come to a reasonable conclusion of where we would be without it, it would only be a guess. To reiterate I can see all of the negatives its brought. My concern is a 1984 state, where there is no truth, meaning, and rules that change by the minute. I think without a belief in god it makes it easier for the state to accomplish. I am open minded about it but, this became ever so clear to me during the pandemic when we saw a fear psychosis. You are right, Peterson has been authoritarian on issues, perhaps this is the hypocrisy that we see when anybody talks for long enough. I think we are seeing JP awakening in this respect. He should have seen the corruption in the west long before C19. I guess you and I would like to have seen him as a critic earlier. I am just very glad that someone with such a huge presence is waking up now. Likewise Neil Oliver, who has been a few steps behind me on many things, is now wide awake to all of what we have seen, and I think "good on him", throwing away perhaps much that he has worked for to speak a greater truth. I would suggest there is an idealist in me somewhere beneath the surface and that is why I like JFK so much as a leader. I can see the emergence of that in Dr Robert Malone, Neil Oliver, Peterson and others. Even Russel Brand is calling it out and I used to detest him. As I said to a psychologist friend who agreed, once you see it, you can't unsee it. There is no going back. Regarding mental illness, its unexplained (largely). I can see why it helps big government to gaslight the population, making them think they are mentally ill, and to hide the remedies in plain sight. We have an epidemic of mental illness and we advocate celebrating it. We have an obsession with safety that creates sick minds. Whilst science is nascent, I can't say more than the jury is out. I liked Szasz talk here: Its clear to me that most people can be fixed without meds. 1/5 Americans is now on some kind of mind altering drugs. Also easier for the state to rule (seems Huxley'an).https://www.psychotherapy.net/video/szasz-myth-of-mental-illness I won't touch the vegan topic too much, as such, as I think its is dear to you and I don't wish to cause offence. I have different views and I think wherever we go with it, it will seem paradoxical. I do eat mean and fish, the fish/crustaceans I always catch myself and the meat comes from a local farmer, where mass production farming methods and chemicals are not used. If that makes me lacking a compassion, I am at peace with it. I don't think we would be having this conversation today perhaps without man discovering he can eat bone marrow, and the consumption of fish, obviously some have claims to the contrary. One thing I would question regardless of my position is; why is MSM promoting the idea that we are to eat bugs? Its clear that reducing testosterone in men reduces fertility and the vital chemicals males need to rise up and have a revolution against a tyranny. It seems like another piece to the jigsaw. Some of my good friends are vegan, I know its a very nuanced conversation. What I have noticed in my own body and ageing is that sugar, carbs, bad oils that burn at high temps and possibly lectins seem to be the biggest sinners in diet. Media would have us believe its meat and fat. Its clear the over consumption of food is very detrimental to health. I just weighed myself and I am back to my weight at 23 years of age after a long period of being much heavier. I intermittent fast (16 hours),eat naturally, have cut the sugars as much as possible, and exercise daily. I feel so much better than when I was 25 in many respects. I think there is a huge difference in eating things that are GMO modified, mass farmed and fertilised. I live in a very unique place where this is possible. In Peterson's case, I'd eat meat only too if it cured his daughters mental illness and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Perhaps thats being compassionate to himself and others around him. Its a sub optimal situation each way I look at it. Regarding the global warming, I forget the environmental project he was involved in at length. Its true, he has no qualifications in that domain. Then any scientist speaking out about it has been canceled. Even the ex head of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore. I am incredibly sceptical of the science we are told to trust, as we have seen how much science was bent or corrupted in the past two years to accommodate big corporations. Its the same charitable organisations pushing it hardest, the very same ones that pushed eugenics in the 1930's. In the current climate I always feel I have to clarify my position, as its so tribal. Its a disgrace what is and has been done to the planet, and there certainly needs to be massive changes, but, its clear to me that an honest, necessary cause has been hijacked for profit and as a means to walk the population into a less equitable situation, ie carbon credits and technocracy. Its another part of this convergence IMHO. I think JP's opinion on population has stated repeatedly that the worlds population is set to drop rapidly. I think we could sustain a lot more people by being much started and still maintain the biodiversity. Its clear it can't be done the way its being managed now. We are seeing the fact that people are not replicating in the west will be a significant factor in the dying of this culture. It hasn't escaped my attention all of the factors that are making it drop, addiction to technology, propaganda, and reproductive capacity being destroyed with chemicals and affordable foods/drinks. That isn't accidental. Whether it leads to an outcome that you desire, it doesn't change the fact that the high ups are playing god over us, which I think you may be against. I thin Peterson's crux is that we shouldn't be making young people feel ashamed to be alive. Putting the blame on them or even the uneducated is just wrong. The people who profited from plastics, these chemicals etc knew what they were doing. They have never been accountable. Regarding JP as a messiah for young men; I will make the point that they have zero direction, no heroes, no archetypes of value, nobody setting an example, they are devoid of direction and they don't know who they are. When someone tries to help, its almost a certainty that they will follow. He shouldn't need to do it, it should be done in schooling and academia. Its a thankless task for him, a poisoned chalice and I am certain there is much he won't get right. But, in the face of what we are experiencing, I think he is doing plenty of good. He is after all a human, like you and I, not perfect. Not in response to you, which applies to a lot of this; do some humans need to be ruled? Do they need structures? I don't. Some just seem to follow and others are content with independence and to lead. I certainly don't have the answers and like all of us I can be wrong, John. I thought I'd serve up my perspective, as thats what we do here, share ideas and debate. We can certainly disagree on this without any offence or umbrage taken. Cheers Chris Edited October 28, 2022 by Chris Barnard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 Far-right extremists plotting to attack the energy sector as gas prices finally start to drop: report - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 Nancy Pelosi's husband 'violently assaulted’ in their home, House speaker's office says (aol.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said: Nancy Pelosi's husband 'violently assaulted’ in their home, House speaker's office says (aol.com) did the attacker yell "This is MAGA country" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said: did the attacker yell "This is MAGA country" ? Mathew, Has the MAGA media accused Nancy of hiring a hit man yet? Please keep us apprised. 🤥 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said: Nancy Pelosi's husband 'violently assaulted’ in their home, House speaker's office says (aol.com) https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1586026106561306625 Ana Cabrera @AnaCabrera NEW: Pelosi assailant shouted "where is Nancy" before the attack, a source briefed on the attack on her husband Paul Pelosi tells CNN's @jamiegangel OMG Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 (edited) 23 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said: Nancy Pelosi's husband 'violently assaulted’ in their home, House speaker's office says (aol.com) The Repubs will use this violent assault incident to proclaim their usual Dem attack rhetoric... What do you expect in a Democratic party controlled American big city? Out of control violent crime. Disrespecting the police, etc. Edited October 29, 2022 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts