>> truth is never a friend to our enemies.
There is no truth in “trutherism”. Don’t mistake the title of the movement for a descriptor of its content.
Lies are often a friend to our enemies — as are the intentional purveyors of those lies, and the gullible folks that fall for them.
>> but because I am open to at least the premise that our government might do something very bad, because I have a mind that wants to check the facts in a fair setting, that sets me over there with the bad guys?
The gullible among their ranks are still among their ranks. Look at who is standing around you — Rosie O’Donnell, Alex Jones, Van Jones, Amy Goodman, etc. — and tell me if you’re among the bad guys.
>> So then, would you say that me believing my dad’s Pearl Harbor stories from his naval cryptography days, is a disqualification for public office? If so, please elaborate. Because thus far, you have not made your case.
I will admit to lack of education about Pearl Harbor and conspiracy theories surrounding it ... but I view any such theories with severe skepticism (which, by the way, would’ve been a reasonable answer by Medina if she truly was uneducated about the “truther” movement).
My comments were, and are, specifically regarding the 9-11 “truth” movement. Trying to extrapolate to “all questioning” of the government, or Pearl Harbor, or whatever does not negate the fact that Medina and some of her supporters are a part of an extremely fringe anti-American propaganda movement.
They have the right to ask whatever questions they want ... and I have the right to think that they are engaging in anti-American propaganda, defacto ineligible for any public office in this country.
SnakeDoc
Rosie O’Donnell, Alex Jones, Van Jones, Amy Goodman aren’t standing anywhere close to where I’m standing. I have personal information that Pearl Harbor was very like the kind of setup they say 9/11 was. I have no proof on 9/11, and have substantial reasons to disbelieve the so-called truthers. But I have every reason to distrust my government. I come by it personally and honestly. If having that single attribute in common with them discredits me in your eyes, that’s your choice, as you say.
But I wonder then what it really means to be “gullible?” I found this definition and somewhat like it:
… perhaps from the bird (see gull (n.)), or from verb gull “to swallow” (1530, from O.Fr. goule, from L. gula “throat,” see gullet); in either case with a sense of “someone who will swallow anything thrown at him.”
So if I’m swallowing neither the 9/11 insider theory nor the faulty premise that our government can do us no harm, but you are accepting the latter, then which of us is more “gullible?”
BTW, yes, I agree, “truthers” is such an unfortunate label. EVERYbody’s a truther, don’tcha know.