I'll let the link speak for itself but suffice to say even the rather partisan liberals are being bit facetious in the claim that Trump is literally controlled by some cult leader.
http://askakorean.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-irrational-downfall-of-park-geun-hye.html?m=1
I would not classify Putin as a "cult leader".
The modern day american liberalism which scarcely rises above a cult shouldn't project their motivations on others. But they just can't help themselves.
Your right wing counterparts from the past thought the same thing about emancipation, universal suffrage, then civil rights. History doesn't look back on them kindly and you'll be join them soon enough.
Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Seances" were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.
Factual arguments inevitably benefit people who've learned something in school, in this case some history.It certainly took you longer than the average leftist to be reduced to this line of attack.
Anyway, liberals shouldn't be throwing stones lest their glass houses are shattered,
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/25/u...ust-pushing-the-membrane-of-the-possible.html
Guilty as sin, yet free as a bird.
Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Seances" were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.
Guilty as sin, yet free as a bird.
Jean Houston has instructed executives from such buttoned-down companies as Xerox, lectured at such sober universities as Harvard and worked with such mainstream figures as Margaret Mead.
Factual arguments inevitably benefit people who've learned something in school, in this case some history.
Or basic reading comprehension:
"But in an interview here at her Rockland County home today, Dr. Houston said Mrs. Clinton never made any seance-like effort to contact the spirits of Mrs. Roosevelt or Gandhi but simply engaged in an intellectual role-playing exercise to tackle a problem the First Lady was having with her book about children, "It Takes a Village.""
Though it's easy to see how folks not known for thinking can get confused about what an intellectual exercise is.
Of course this doesn't come even close to the academic brilliance of Dr. Ted Noel, the Republican nut..I mean doctor who is diagnosing Hillary diseases via Youtube videos. I wish we Dems/Libs had such a brilliant man, and not some doctor who lectures at Harvard!
Thank my luck stars that I didn't learn the warped history of American liberalism.
Lying by omission should be the charge that you should use.
hahaha, that's a convenient excuse if any. I don't really care one way or other, except that it's a handy stone to shatter liberal glasshouses so it'd better if they kept their mouths shut when it came to accusing Trump of being a cult follower.
Funny given how cultish right wing revisionism is. "Don't believe the experts and their books, trust poorly written blogs/pamphlets".
V. The Black Hole at the Bottom of Most Declarations that “Stereotypes are Inaccurate”
Despite the large lit showing stereotypes are mostly accurate, broad reviews and books largely ignore it — like, even if one disagrees with my conclusions, scientists should not be in the busines of simply *ignoring* the data. Don’t believe it? Fine, refute it. But you cannot call yourself a scientist and just ignore it, as if we can declare “stereotypes are inaccurate” on the basis of ZERO evidence demonstrating that, but, when the 50 or so studies addressing the issue overwhelmingly provide evidence of accuracy, what do we (mostly) do? Ignore it as if just never happened.
It certainly took you longer than the average leftist to be reduced to this line of attack.
Anyway, liberals shouldn't be throwing stones lest their glass houses are shattered,
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/25/u...ust-pushing-the-membrane-of-the-possible.html
Guilty as sin, yet free as a bird.
Funny given how cultish the leftist american academia is, you really don't have a clue do you?
http://andrewgelman.com/2016/10/19/the-psychological-science-stereotype-paradox/#comment-329695
History is small potatoes compared to science, social science but still 'science'.
Thank my luck stars that I didn't learn the warped history of American liberalism.
Lying by omission should be the charge that you should use.
hahaha, that's a convenient excuse if any. I don't really care one way or other, except that it's a handy stone to shatter liberal glasshouses so it'd better if they kept their mouths shut when it came to accusing Trump of being a cult follower.
Funny given how cultish the leftist american academia is, you really don't have a clue do you?
LMAO. I guess your parents successfully convinced you that "college" was a scary place filled with "girls" and crazy ideas like "evolution" and "gravity" and "economic theory."
Linking to a misdirected ranted from some academic isn't exactly going to make smart folks think you're one of them.
So you were never educated?
got it.
LMAO. I guess your parents successfully convinced you that "college" was a scary place filled with "girls" and crazy ideas like "evolution" and "gravity" and "economic theory."
hahaha, you really have delusions of grandeur.
I've posted on that blog before relating to the matter in the other thread. So much for that.
As for 'misdirected ranted', wow, you really are clueless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivek
Look up the Larry Summers's women faculty fiasco, I thought it was a big exaggeration when my college senior told me that their weekly lab sessions were equivalent to whole month projects in MIT, I still think it’s an exaggeration but not as big as I thought back then.
I can LMAO as well, but you are so off the mark that it's not even funny anymore. Tragic.
American social sciences are a bloody joke, another exhibit,
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/economists-and-biology/
If you're going to pretend to be smart, it works better to actually say something intelligent instead of appealing to what your name means.
hahaha, that's my line since I never appealed to what my name means, dear. Read it again and you might somehow come to understand why I mentioned that.
Anyway, that 'spirit cooking' sure took a toll. Glass houses and all.
Is this how someone with a coherent stream of thought writes like in your head?