PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on September 26, 2018, 06:02:56 AM
-
How do I start such a movement. I am ready to give up and abandon this country to the liberals and just take what I can get and let someone else pay for it.
One problem with this idea is that I am sure that if I did start it, some woman that could prove we attended the same party some time in the past 66 years could potentially claim I raped them (I never did anything close to that) and ruin any credibility I have.
-
How do I start such a movement. I am ready to give up and abandon this country to the liberals and just take what I can get and let someone else pay for it.
One problem with this idea is that I am sure that if I did start it, some woman that could prove we attended the same party some time in the past 66 years could potentially claim I raped them (I never did anything close to that) and ruin any credibility I have.
Only if you remain a registered non-democrat (communist).
-
How do I start such a movement. I am ready to give up and abandon this country to the liberals and just take what I can get and let someone else pay for it.
See Venezuela as a prime example of this at work.
-
With the walk away movement I am hopeful we aren't dead yet, but the more the radical left is backed into a corner the more tenacious and vicious they'll get. It is crucial the Republicans do not let this circus stop Kavanaugh's confirmation and that Trump continues to deflect the attacks. This has become a full on assault one step short of outright coup and if the military were firmly on their side I am sure the left would already have done it. That we might have a majority of the military on our side may be what saves us, I hope. But it is very important the Republicans grow balls and start smacking down these underhanded machinations. If the left regains power I will want to see armed revolt, and to see these people lined up and shot as traitors. Regardless, if the right holds power, the problem still remains that the Federal Government has become much too big and intrudes on our liberties far too much. I'm not sure the right "winning" is really a win but at least the economy is improving and my taxes are lower.
-
Nov 6 2016 was truly a watershed day for me. More than likely greater than most others affected by Trump's win. In Jan 2016 we went to Belize to reconnoiter the place. We stayed in nice hotels, and did some diving and some tourist stuff, but I also rented a car, and went looking at the interior, did some land evaluation, talked to the local cops, and a mayor or two. I was getting ready to put some money down on a house there, and wanted to be sure we had full time power and water avail as I didn't want to get too native if we had to move.
In March we did the same thing in Grand Cayman. I got real close to buying a nice piece of land over on the North Beach area, with spitting distance to a small boat ramp and dock. By June, we'd decided on Cayman over Belize due to the nature of the Belize govt, and their lack of care outside of Belize city. I had an option on the land in Cayman, and by early Sept we were getting ready to close.
Unlike all the noisy angry libs who promised to move to Canada if Trump were elected, I was not kidding around. I was NEVER going to live under Hillary, and if it cost me some in lost funds, and living abroad most of the year - so be it. Cayman was a nice place, and I could visit the US easy enough. Also S America, and of course EU.
Something in Sept made me pause. I was tuned in pretty well to the election coverage, and the libs were starting to sound just a bit too frantic. Each 'poll' that came out showing Hillary ahead by 3 points, or 5 points, or 9 points or something was just a bit to staged, a bit too relieved by the left. Something - was amiss in lib-land.
So, I waited, and let the option expire in mid Oct and said - lets just ride this out, and see what we will see. I can go back and make another deal later, but hold off and let things play out. As we all know, it was a clean sweep. I stayed up all night, and with each passing state, each passing hour I just relaxed and knew that I didn't have to pull up stakes, and turn our lives upside down. We were gonna be fine. 37 Governors, 31 state houses, 52 senators, plenty of HR members, and we were gonna have a new conservative SCOTUS in a few months.
Now, I see things like the reversal of the idiotic climate lies, and tightening of border controls, the blocking of angry muslims coming in to the US, #walkaway, economy booming, intl crime down, and some frustration on the faces of what used to be our 'friends' around the world who have been using us like toilet paper for decades. I'm actually upbeat. I'm happy and seeing progress. Of course, there are still mountains to climb, and the colleges are one of those places that need a good laundering. But I thing the US has turned a corner, and is getting healthy again. I'm not shopping for a place to bolt anymore. I have gained confidence, and feel great about our future.
-
Election night will stand out as one of the happiest of my entire life. I was sure the country was doomed. I was traveling and in a hotel room all by myself watching the returns. As they came in and that needle swung more and more to Trump, it was lifting a huge weight off me, the relief and joy was amazing. And back then I had no idea whether Trump would keep any of his promises but just knowing I would not have to deal with Hillary being in charge, it was like hope and change had finally come! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
-
Invflatspin, a fantastic story, wonderfully told. I have hope now, too, but didn’t before. I hadn’t thought until Rush mentioned it about the military going left and kicking in as a socialism/Dem enforcement arm. Scary!
On election night when Trump won Florida, and the NYT algorithm showed him with a 99% chance of winning, I felt like I could finally breathe again. The world seemed bigger, more full of great possibility. The relief was YUGE!
Little Joe is married to a liberal, so that makes it all more discouraging for him. But even liberals are showing disgust at what their party has become. History show that people and countries don’t change until they become disgusted with themselves. Dems are.
-
Would like to address the military aspect of this theme. It's been a long, long time since I was part of the big green machine, and I have no current involvement, but to get the armed forces to go along with a partisan rejection of constitutional authority, would be a huge, almost impossible hill to climb. And even more-so just after an election with a new party in power. Doesn't matter which party, I'm quite certain the armed forces would keep its powder dry, and at least give the new guy a chance.
The armed forces of the US are among the most staid, and conventional, and reactive of any on Earth. To get a few rogue officers in a position to mess with an elected govt requires many years, and many grades to achieve. The layers involved in the armed forces from the top down are extremely sensitive to any kind of sway, and that's why we almost never hear of contention in the upper ranks. I can say I think the upper ranks of the military are where we truly are most impartial to party conniving. Not to say it hasn't been done to a lesser degree, but the last place one is going to foment overthrow of an elected govt is the armed forces.
Where it would/could happen are in the various state houses of CA, NY, IL, etc. Along with those state judiciary, where politics is a board game, they can and often do gum up the works(on both sides). The AG of MD is a good example, turning a blind eye to obvious minority criminal behavior. Also, the CA assembly going whole hog on this 'sanctuary' stuff. Should the state houses start going along with this stuff to a greater degree, it can undermine the federal power. Flexing the muscles of the federal LEO or other enforcement arm(ICE, NSA, FBI, etc) can be seen and shrilly screamed as totalitarian control. With some truth behind it. Even though immigration is an obvious federal area of the law.
In summary, I don't think one should worry about a rogue military uprising, unless things have changed dramatically in the last 40 years, which I don't see. There are other places where the conservatives need to worry, but not the armed forces.
-
Election night will stand out as one of the happiest of my entire life. I was sure the country was doomed. I was traveling and in a hotel room all by myself watching the returns. As they came in and that needle swung more and more to Trump, it was lifting a huge weight off me, the relief and joy was amazing. And back then I had no idea whether Trump would keep any of his promises but just knowing I would not have to deal with Hillary being in charge, it was like hope and change had finally come! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
My wife is an early to bed, but I encouraged her to stick around for a while, and we can support each other. I kept chanting; 'Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan'. PA held out till past midnight. Once PA fell, it was like birthday, xmas, and holiday all rolled in to one. I knew PA would be the close one, and OH was almost assured. FL gave me some worries for a while, but when FL went over to Trump I thought PA(outlying counties) that were coming in would turn the tide. It was - glorious.
-
Were I to leave the country I would have done so at the election of the Super Fragile Ego extra Braggadocious. But I didn't and won't. Even though he's the top dog, he's only one guy. We have institutions that limit the damage he can do. And he's temporary, my hope is four years but we'll see. Could even be two, if the promised blue wave comes to pass. I have strong doubts on that one, but again we'll see.
Those of you ready to depart a Hillary victory are dumb dumb dumb. She was only one person, and she would have had an entirely hostile Congress limiting what few things she could try.
Ours is a nation of institutions. The founders set it up that way to limit the power of any one individual. They were wise.
And if you think we have a tax-friendly but-inksky government, try the British, who run Grand Cayman. I'd go there to be in the Bahamas (there is a University...) but not as a refuge from the tyrannical US government. Won't happen though. Had a great job opportunity in Hawaii, but Mrs. Steingar nixed it. Didn't want to live on an island.
-
And if you think we have a tax-friendly but-inksky government, try the British, who run Grand Cayman. I'd go there to be in the Bahamas (there is a University...) but not as a refuge from the tyrannical US government.
Psssssssssss............
(The Grand Cayman is not in the Bahamas......just saying)
-
Invflatspin, a fantastic story, wonderfully told. I have hope now, too, but didn’t before. I hadn’t thought until Rush mentioned it about the military going left and kicking in as a socialism/Dem enforcement arm. Scary!
On election night when Trump won Florida, and the NYT algorithm showed him with a 99% chance of winning, I felt like I could finally breathe again. The world seemed bigger, more full of great possibility. The relief was YUGE!
Little Joe is married to a liberal, so that makes it all more discouraging for him. But even liberals are showing disgust at what their party has become. History show that people and countries don’t change until they become disgusted with themselves. Dems are.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this disgust will prevent us from going the way of the Roman Empire.
-
Were I to leave the country I would have done so at the election of the Super Fragile Ego extra Braggadocious. But I didn't and won't. Even though he's the top dog, he's only one guy. We have institutions that limit the damage he can do. And he's temporary, my hope is four years but we'll see. Could even be two, if the promised blue wave comes to pass. I have strong doubts on that one, but again we'll see.
Those of you ready to depart a Hillary victory are dumb dumb dumb. She was only one person, and she would have had an entirely hostile Congress limiting what few things she could try.
Ours is a nation of institutions. The founders set it up that way to limit the power of any one individual. They were wise.
And if you think we have a tax-friendly but-inksky government, try the British, who run Grand Cayman. I'd go there to be in the Bahamas (there is a University...) but not as a refuge from the tyrannical US government. Won't happen though. Had a great job opportunity in Hawaii, but Mrs. Steingar nixed it. Didn't want to live on an island.
If Hillary had won we wouldn't have the tax cut and despite what Pelosi says it means a hell of a lot to middle class deplorable me.
But I 100% agree the U.S. government has become tyrannical.
-
Were I to leave the country I would have done so at the election of the Super Fragile Ego extra Braggadocious. But I didn't and won't. Even though he's the top dog, he's only one guy. We have institutions that limit the damage he can do. And he's temporary, my hope is four years but we'll see. Could even be two, if the promised blue wave comes to pass. I have strong doubts on that one, but again we'll see.
Those of you ready to depart a Hillary victory are dumb dumb dumb. She was only one person, and she would have had an entirely hostile Congress limiting what few things she could try.
Ours is a nation of institutions. The founders set it up that way to limit the power of any one individual. They were wise.
And if you think we have a tax-friendly but-inksky government, try the British, who run Grand Cayman. I'd go there to be in the Bahamas (there is a University...) but not as a refuge from the tyrannical US government. Won't happen though. Had a great job opportunity in Hawaii, but Mrs. Steingar nixed it. Didn't want to live on an island.
You would never EVER leave your little snowflake central,cocoon and the echo chamber of progressive bullshit.
You might have to work for a living for one thing.
-
Those of you ready to depart a Hillary victory are dumb dumb dumb. She was only one person, and she would have had an entirely hostile Congress limiting what few things she could try.
I am a fairly dumb guy, but sometimes gotta do what gotta do. The fourth estate would have been in lock-step with Hillary. She would have been anointed and given every possible even probable good favor. Even more than BO. All lies swept away, all secrets remain secret, and no one could ask for a more pliant world platform for her debouching of the country. Eventually, no borders, billions on welfare and minorities, more billions for MMGW spending, etc. A new far left SCOTUS appointment. The Senate would still be Republican, but the HR would be hamstrung. Every bill from the HR would be vetoed. If something conservative snuck through it could be overturned by the court, or tied up for years by many leftist activist judges, just as they have tried to deny the power to Trump to enforce his mandates.
Imagine what kind of sway Trump would have with a pliant press, rather than completely hostile. No, I'm afraid a Hillary exec would have caused real havoc. Mostly because she is incompetent. Her only claim to fame is an election to the senate from NY, and that was bought and paid for. As far as accomplishments, she is completely void. And that would be the legacy for at least 4 years, more likely 4 after that because once in the chair, there is no low bar she would not set for criminal behavior. We know this based on her recent history.
-
I wake every morning and smile knowing Felonious Von Pantsuits will never be President.
-
I wake every morning and smile knowing Felonious Von Pantsuits will never be President.
You don't think she'll run in 2020? Can't imagine someone with her ego giving up that easily.
-
You don't think she'll run in 2020? Can't imagine someone with her ego giving up that easily.
She wants to run, no doubt. But she won’t be able to hijack the DNC and rig the primary process, again.
Plus she doesn’t have the political clout any longer. Her and Bill’s time in the lime light have come to an end.
-
The Clinton vacuum will eventually be filled by another well funded puppet of the Globalists.
-
As much as they tell themselves Trump stole the election with help from the Russians, in their heart of hearts they know damn well Hillary is unappealing and getting more so by the day. They'd be insane to run her again, ever. They'll find somebody younger and more charismatic.
-
I cast around the left barrel of snakes once in a while. I gotta say - they are hurtin' for certain for an executive caliber candidate. Gov moonbeam out of CA is one direction they could go. He's got some name brand recognition, and he's a darling of the minority set. Sadly for him, he scares the hell out of every non-Californian/NY white person. Hickenlooper is another possible. Maybe a bit more palatable.
Last and best might be Cuomo. He doesn't turn people's stomach, so I think he's gonna be the default guy.
-
I cast around the left barrel of snakes once in a while. I gotta say - they are hurtin' for certain for an executive caliber candidate. Gov moonbeam out of CA is one direction they could go. He's got some name brand recognition, and he's a darling of the minority set. Sadly for him, he scares the hell out of every non-Californian/NY white person. Hickenlooper is another possible. Maybe a bit more palatable.
Last and best might be Cuomo. He doesn't turn people's stomach, so I think he's gonna be the default guy.
As a former / never again New Yorker, he makes me sick. Slimy without the smarmy charm of Papa Mario.
-
As a former / never again New Yorker, he makes me sick. Slimy without the smarmy charm of Papa Mario.
Outside of the uber liberal northeast and The People's Democratic Republic of California, he would be a bust. Total turnoff to even moderate democrats in the flyover states.
-
As a former / never again New Yorker, he makes me sick. Slimy without the smarmy charm of Papa Mario.
Yeah, I realize he's a scumbag, but he's their kind of scumbag, and he's not about to fall into a grave in the next 4 years. Everyone else over there is one foot in, and starting to smell like three day fish.
-
Didn't they pull Obama out of nowhere and elevate him to Presidency? For that matter didn't Trump come charging in and make himself President without much help from his declared party? All it takes is the right face saying the right things to gain a mindless following. Obama did it with empty air and Trump did it with promises he is actually fulfilling, but it could just as easily have turned out to also be empty air for all we knew at the time we voted.
The one with appeal wins, and that is all it takes. Not experience, not qualifications. Looking around to try to guess who they could put up is futile. At any time a "never heard of him" wannabe could pop up out of nowhere and be appealing enough to take it back for the Dems.
This is my pessimistic, must be on guard stance, but I hope it doesn't happen. I'm hoping enough dems have woken up and are learning about issues. This sort of superficial appeal only works on the center swing votes that are what really has made our elections in recent history (popular stays a pretty solid 50/50). Those with strong convictions vote their side regardless of less appeal. My optimistic self hopes enough of these superficial voters are studying facts and educating themselves. A lot of blacks and gays fall in this category. There are others who are committed ideologues who are switching sides because the Democratic Party left them. The unionized working class of the Rust belt for example.
It would be pretty amazing if that 50/50 split starts pulling apart. It would be historic. But the move right may be fighting the constant yearly influx of young voters fresh out of public schools. I'm hoping there is a movement within universities to leave the progressive left lead by such as Jordan Peterson but I not going to hold my breath.
One thing is for sure though, if it happens to catch on among youngsters that leaving the left is "cool" then the dems are in very deep trouble. That's part of what drove the rise of the left in the 60s. I recall as a young teen someone introducing me to a person involved in "The Weather Underground". At the time my stupid 14 year old brain thought "cool!" But of course it didn't take, soon after I had thoroughly educated myself and settled on libertarianism, strongly rejecting the left, other than some social issues.
But I had fallen in with other libertarians. The young are deeply influenced by their peers. So if #walkaway catches on among the youth, the left is in deep shit. The university establishment is now leftist and youth want to rebel, if they get the idea to rebel against the current university establishment, they will be moving right. All it takes is a few popular kids going "wait a minute, why are we denying free speech to the gay conservative Jew just because he's conservative? That don't seem right." A few leader types saying that and it'll take off like wildfire just as radical leftism did in the 60s and 70s. I can dream anyway. But if this happens look to the dems to try to raise the voting age back to 21, ha ha ha ha ha!!! Can't wait to hear their hypocritical rationalization for that.
-
One thing is for sure though, if it happens to catch on among youngsters that leaving the left is "cool" then the dems are in very deep trouble.
Many youngsters typically move right as they age. When they're young, they're mostly low income, and thus want free shit. Free healthcare, free college or student loans, etc. As they age and move up the income bracket, they learn where all that "free" shit comes from, and move right.
-
Many youngsters typically move right as they age. When they're young, they're mostly low income, and thus want free shit. Free healthcare, free college or student loans, etc. As they age and move up the income bracket, they learn where all that "free" shit comes from, and move right.
True. They can be brought more right earlier if they hang around the right (pun intended) people.
-
Whatever you think about her, she would have had a hostile congress, just like the Obaminator. And I don't think the press would have been kind to her, I don't think they liked her at all. But its all nonsense, the Mango Mussolini is large and in charge. Why you guys still bitch about liberals is beyond me. They aren't running much of anything. I guess anything for a scapegoat.
-
Hostile congress, likely yes. An unkind press toward Hillary? The first woman prez? Wife of Bill? That comment is unsupportable by any evidence of the MSM in the past 12 years. The press repeatedly felated minority BO when he was in office. They have been savage to Trump. Thinking they would suddenly change their spots and say anything unkind to an angry, defensive woman in the oval office is rank speculation with no foundation.
-
Whatever you think about her, she would have had a hostile congress, just like the Obaminator. And I don't think the press would have been kind to her, I don't think they liked her at all. But its all nonsense, the Mango Mussolini is large and in charge. Why you guys still bitch about liberals is beyond me. They aren't running much of anything. I guess anything for a scapegoat.
The mouth foaming alt left progressives are constantly obstructing. Even when they are offered more than they ask for, they obstruct. The blind obstruction, that they call "resist!" is simply about power. Power at any cost. People who crave power at any cost are dangerous as we have been witnessing since Nov 2016.
Since you get all of your information from CNN soundbites and daily talking points it's no wonder you have such a myopic view of the state of politics. Your ignorance is on display once again.
-
And I don't think the press would have been kind to her, I don't think they liked her at all.
That statement alone shows how biased, and out of touch you are. Nothing could be further from the truth. It really hurts any credibility you had left from a political perspective.
-
Since you get all of your information from CNN soundbites and daily talking points it's no wonder you have such a myopic view of the state of politics. Your ignorance is on display once again.
Is this true? Would Steingar ever maybe listen to Sean Hannity for a while? One broadcast won't do it, you have to give it some time to get past Hannity's right slant and see the patterns in what he's saying, that differ from the patterns you're getting from CNN.
Here's a tidbit I got from Jonathan Haidt: The higher your IQ, the better you are at reasoning HOWEVER BUT reasoning only for your own side. All people, no matter their IQ, are bad at reasoning out objective truth, unless they open their minds to the opposing viewpoint. Only by listening honestly to the opposing viewpoint can they detect the facts they otherwise don't know that may or may not support their original belief.
Actually, says he, truth is arrived at by combining minds. Even scientific truth, because everyone is biased. Even scientists. They begin with a theory, then they want to prove it. Because it's in their interest to prove themselves right. It's the process of peer review that results in the determination of whether it's actually correct or not. Universities traditionally have been the best place to seek and find truth. And now of course this objective process is threatened by the trend to shut down speech from certain parties.
No matter if you are on the left or the right, if you have not looked deeply into the opposite side, then you are likely incorrect in a lot of your beliefs, no matter how intelligent you are. It's easier for those on the right to look into both sides, as most media supports the left and the majority of students and teachers at universities are leftist these days. It takes more courage and individual will for the left to open their minds to the right than vice versa, in today's urban environment.
-
That statement alone shows how biased, and out of touch you are. Nothing could be further from the truth. It really hurts any credibility you had left from a political perspective.
Here's a fact: Steingar comes here to troll just to entertain himself. He is void of intellectual thought and cannot debate anything using facts.
Credibility? I've never seen anything that says he's ever displayed credibility.
He's nothing but an ignorant troll. Don't feed the trolls.
-
Is this true? Would Steingar ever maybe listen to Sean Hannity for a while? One broadcast won't do it, you have to give it some time to get past Hannity's right slant and see the patterns in what he's saying, that differ from the patterns you're getting from CNN.
Here's a tidbit I got from Jonathan Haidt: The higher your IQ, the better you are at reasoning HOWEVER BUT reasoning only for your own side. All people, no matter their IQ, are bad at reasoning out objective truth, unless they open their minds to the opposing viewpoint. Only by listening honestly to the opposing viewpoint can they detect the facts they otherwise don't know that may or may not support their original belief.
Actually, says he, truth is arrived at by combining minds. Even scientific truth, because everyone is biased. Even scientists. They begin with a theory, then they want to prove it. Because it's in their interest to prove themselves right. It's the process of peer review that results in the determination of whether it's actually correct or not. Universities traditionally have been the best place to seek and find truth. And now of course this objective process is threatened by the trend to shut down speech from certain parties.
No matter if you are on the left or the right, if you have not looked deeply into the opposite side, then you are likely incorrect in a lot of your beliefs, no matter how intelligent you are. It's easier for those on the right to look into both sides, as most media supports the left and the majority of students and teachers at universities are leftist these days. It takes more courage and individual will for the left to open their minds to the right than vice versa, in today's urban environment.
See post #32
-
Why you guys still bitch about liberals is beyond me. They aren't running much of anything. I guess anything for a scapegoat.
This deserved more examination. I bitch about liberals for several reasons. First, I used to be one. It would be discourteous and maybe irrelevant for me to bitch about them not having walked a few miles in their shoes. Hard against the political left is a poor way to go through life, angry and frustrated and wanting to continually 'change' things 'hoping' that said change will be better. Ferry Porsche said something that has stuck with me for a long time; "To change is easy, to improve is very hard". BO said, and liberals and progs have carried the banner to 'fundamentally change' the US. Well, I got news for the liberals. Look around at the world. Get out there. Get out of your angry victimized, fault-finding bubble and look at who else is winning. Emulate that. Winning is good, and we need more of it. The US is the greatest economy, greatest freedom, greatest liberty, and life confirming place on Earth. Does that mean perfection? No, but we are a republic, with a limited restriction capitalist economy. What kind of change is the left looking for? Toward socialism? Toward totalitarianism? Is that really the kind of 'change' we want? Russians toyed with totalitarianism and failed. Venezuela(and others) have tried socialism and it's a massive life killing failure.
The other aspect of liberalism that troubles me is the unflinching hypocrisy they live on, and apparently are completely blind to its existence. Libs talk a big game about 'inclusiveness' and wanting to be everything to everyone. But - no matter the gender, color, or sexual orientation, or faith in every instance a philosophy that is foreign to liberalism is rejected. Conservatives know that some liberal social positions are ok, even progressive. Take abortion. The majority of conservatives give it a nod of acceptance, even if they abhor the details. No one on the right is screaming about reversing Roe V Wade, but the libs are apoplectic with worry and rage about a non-issue. If/when the right moves to restrict or overturn Roe V Wade then yes, stand up and be heard.
The left advances positions that are categorically unsound, like MMGW. They get on a bandwagon, without knowing the full story or science behind global climate and it becomes a religious mantra. "Global warming is proven science". Are you effing kidding me? No one on the right is saying the opposite, that there is NO MMGW. We just don't know. While 'I don't know' is intellectually unsatisfying, the alternative is taking global actions(mostly economic, very few life changes) to mitigate global warming without even knowing how to measure gains or losses. WTF? 'We need to take action right now'. No - we don't. We need to research, in an open and unbiased way, and then develop a theory, and then postulate solutions, and then test them, and then define a plan, with measurable goals, and then implement it. That - is - how - real - science - works. Libs want to skip research, theory, postulate, test, plan, goals and go right to implementation. Even if it makes things worse!
Which leads back to hypocrisy. The left can scream and rail at others to cut back on their carbon footprint. While they own 3 homes, and fly around the globe in private jets, living in air conditioned homes, working in air conditioned offices, and basically planting the largest carbon footprint possible. Are libs completely blind to the duplicity?
So, that's why I and others continue to rail against the tide of liberalism. And by the way, the liberals have a total lock on the media, and the schools in the US. While these aren't institutions of govt, they still carry a large sway with the population. And the means at their disposal may not be legislation, but publicly voiced lies and bias in the face of the will of the people through their elected govt is having an effect. More than 75% of college students are liberal. It's become indoctrination, not instruction, and that is very sad for our future.
-
Is this true? Would Steingar ever maybe listen to Sean Hannity for a while? One broadcast won't do it, you have to give it some time to get past Hannity's right slant and see the patterns in what he's saying, that differ from the patterns you're getting from CNN.
Here's a tidbit I got from Jonathan Haidt: The higher your IQ, the better you are at reasoning HOWEVER BUT reasoning only for your own side. All people, no matter their IQ, are bad at reasoning out objective truth, unless they open their minds to the opposing viewpoint. Only by listening honestly to the opposing viewpoint can they detect the facts they otherwise don't know that may or may not support their original belief.
Actually, says he, truth is arrived at by combining minds. Even scientific truth, because everyone is biased. Even scientists. They begin with a theory, then they want to prove it. Because it's in their interest to prove themselves right. It's the process of peer review that results in the determination of whether it's actually correct or not. Universities traditionally have been the best place to seek and find truth. And now of course this objective process is threatened by the trend to shut down speech from certain parties.
No matter if you are on the left or the right, if you have not looked deeply into the opposite side, then you are likely incorrect in a lot of your beliefs, no matter how intelligent you are. It's easier for those on the right to look into both sides, as most media supports the left and the majority of students and teachers at universities are leftist these days. It takes more courage and individual will for the left to open their minds to the right than vice versa, in today's urban environment.
I like Haidt and I'm finishing his audio book The Coddling of the American Mind. I recommend it, especially for folks who have kids growing up.
To your point, I like this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald from his series piece (https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a4310/the-crack-up/#ixzz1Fvs5lu8w) in Esquire - "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." What I find interesting about this quote is that it obviously speaks to evaluating multiple viewpoints, but what it doesn't speak to is a sense of correctness or rightness.
Your last paragraph mentions being "incorrect" in many beliefs, but I think that misses the mark. So much of what we discuss in the grand left vs. right debate is neither right nor wrong in the regular sense of the words. And believing so is, in my opinion, what gets us in part of our trouble. Right or wrong, unless we're speaking of clear truths or falsities, becomes an emotional belief. And when we make an emotional choice, we tend to throw off logic and reason and hold tight to our belief. Unfortunately, everything about our two-party system is designed to embrace and reinforce that one side is "right" and the other is "wrong". On everything.
Much better to take a reasoned approach with an open mind. Recognize that neither your perspective, nor your opponent's, is necessarily right or wrong. Vehemently defend your position if you believe it to be the best, but honestly and openly hold your opponent's position in mind for consideration. Have you worked to understand their view? A good test may be whether you can step in their shoes and defend the position that goes against yours. Is his/her way better? If not why not?
There is a right-wing personality who goes onto college campuses, sets up a table, and asks passersby to "change his mind". He posts the videos on YouTube. He opens the discussion by saying that he's open to having his mind changed. I've never seen a video where his mind gets changed, so I think he's just wanting viral video views. What we know and believe is not always better. We should be open -- truly open -- to having our minds changed, and if you're doing it right, changing your way or view should be a fairly regular occurrence.
-
Whatever you think about her, she would have had a hostile congress, just like the Obaminator. And I don't think the press would have been kind to her, I don't think they liked her at all. But its all nonsense, the Mango Mussolini is large and in charge. Why you guys still bitch about liberals is beyond me. They aren't running much of anything. I guess anything for a scapegoat.
The more they aren't running things the more they engage in these despicable machinations. Do you think this is minor? Ruining a man's reputation, putting his family through this?
-
This deserved more examination. I bitch about liberals for several reasons. First, I used to be one. It would be discourteous and maybe irrelevant for me to bitch about them not having walked a few miles in their shoes. Hard against the political left is a poor way to go through life, angry and frustrated and wanting to continually 'change' things 'hoping' that said change will be better. Ferry Porsche said something that has stuck with me for a long time; "To change is easy, to improve is very hard". BO said, and liberals and progs have carried the banner to 'fundamentally change' the US. Well, I got news for the liberals. Look around at the world. Get out there. Get out of your angry victimized, fault-finding bubble and look at who else is winning. Emulate that. Winning is good, and we need more of it. The US is the greatest economy, greatest freedom, greatest liberty, and life confirming place on Earth. Does that mean perfection? No, but we are a republic, with a limited restriction capitalist economy. What kind of change is the left looking for? Toward socialism? Toward totalitarianism? Is that really the kind of 'change' we want? Russians toyed with totalitarianism and failed. Venezuela(and others) have tried socialism and it's a massive life killing failure.
The other aspect of liberalism that troubles me is the unflinching hypocrisy they live on, and apparently are completely blind to its existence. Libs talk a big game about 'inclusiveness' and wanting to be everything to everyone. But - no matter the gender, color, or sexual orientation, or faith in every instance a philosophy that is foreign to liberalism is rejected. Conservatives know that some liberal social positions are ok, even progressive. Take abortion. The majority of conservatives give it a nod of acceptance, even if they abhor the details. No one on the right is screaming about reversing Roe V Wade, but the libs are apoplectic with worry and rage about a non-issue. If/when the right moves to restrict or overturn Roe V Wade then yes, stand up and be heard.
The left advances positions that are categorically unsound, like MMGW. They get on a bandwagon, without knowing the full story or science behind global climate and it becomes a religious mantra. "Global warming is proven science". Are you effing kidding me? No one on the right is saying the opposite, that there is NO MMGW. We just don't know. While 'I don't know' is intellectually unsatisfying, the alternative is taking global actions(mostly economic, very few life changes) to mitigate global warming without even knowing how to measure gains or losses. WTF? 'We need to take action right now'. No - we don't. We need to research, in an open and unbiased way, and then develop a theory, and then postulate solutions, and then test them, and then define a plan, with measurable goals, and then implement it. That - is - how - real - science - works. Libs want to skip research, theory, postulate, test, plan, goals and go right to implementation. Even if it makes things worse!
Which leads back to hypocrisy. The left can scream and rail at others to cut back on their carbon footprint. While they own 3 homes, and fly around the globe in private jets, living in air conditioned homes, working in air conditioned offices, and basically planting the largest carbon footprint possible. Are libs completely blind to the duplicity?
So, that's why I and others continue to rail against the tide of liberalism. And by the way, the liberals have a total lock on the media, and the schools in the US. While these aren't institutions of govt, they still carry a large sway with the population. And the means at their disposal may not be legislation, but publicly voiced lies and bias in the face of the will of the people through their elected govt is having an effect. More than 75% of college students are liberal. It's become indoctrination, not instruction, and that is very sad for our future.
Well said. I’m hoping this week will set libs back on their heels a bit. I know a little about your position on things spiritual, but I don’t mind admitting I prayed hard and long yesterday for truth and justice to prevail in that hearing room, and for God himself, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and all the saints and angels, to be present, and for eyes and hearts and minds to be opened to the evil shenanigans of the left. So our beautiful republic, a shining beacon on a hill, can be preserved. I’m perfectly aware you could lambast and shred my naïveté and belief, but I don’t care. This is a battle with something very evil, and what we can see is not all that is there.
-
I like Haidt and I'm finishing his audio book The Coddling of the American Mind. I recommend it, especially for folks who have kids growing up.
To your point, I like this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald from his series piece (https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a4310/the-crack-up/#ixzz1Fvs5lu8w) in Esquire - "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." What I find interesting about this quote is that it obviously speaks to evaluating multiple viewpoints, but what it doesn't speak to is a sense of correctness or rightness.
Your last paragraph mentions being "incorrect" in many beliefs, but I think that misses the mark. So much of what we discuss in the grand left vs. right debate is neither right nor wrong in the regular sense of the words. And believing so is, in my opinion, what gets us in part of our trouble. Right or wrong, unless we're speaking of clear truths or falsities, becomes an emotional belief. And when we make an emotional choice, we tend to throw off logic and reason and hold tight to our belief. Unfortunately, everything about our two-party system is designed to embrace and reinforce that one side is "right" and the other is "wrong". On everything.
Much better to take a reasoned approach with an open mind. Recognize that neither your perspective, nor your opponent's, is necessarily right or wrong. Vehemently defend your position if you believe it to be the best, but honestly and openly hold your opponent's position in mind for consideration. Have you worked to understand their view? A good test may be whether you can step in their shoes and defend the position that goes against yours. Is his/her way better? If not why not?
There is a right-wing personality who goes onto college campuses, sets up a table, and asks passersby to "change his mind". He posts the videos on YouTube. He opens the discussion by saying that he's open to having his mind changed. I've never seen a video where his mind gets changed, so I think he's just wanting viral video views. What we know and believe is not always better. We should be open -- truly open -- to having our minds changed, and if you're doing it right, changing your way or view should be a fairly regular occurrence.
Okay. Make me want to be a liberal. I’m listening. And no pablum about diversity and wisdom of the crowds, please. I get that a variety of viewpoints are necessary.
Opposing thoughts held together are certainly necessary in life, and show mental fitness of a sort, but not when one thought is that men should be allowed in women’s restrooms and the opposing thought is that women should always be believed when they make allegations of sexual misconduct.
I don’t think frequent mind-changes indicate you’re doing something right. I’m surprised you seem to agree with that canard. Positions are usually taken and strengthened by experience and observation. To change them requires experience and observation that counteracts. I would suspect important positions on issues RARELY change, but when they do, it’s meaningful and somewhat lasting.
-
Okay. Make me want to be a liberal. I’m listening. And no pablum about diversity and wisdom of the crowds, please. I get that a variety of viewpoints are necessary.
I work for a living, so I don't have the time to try to make you want to be a liberal. I also don't have the passion for it at this point.
Opposing thoughts held together are certainly necessary in life, and show mental fitness of a sort, but not when one thought is that men should be allowed in women’s restrooms and the opposing thought is that women should always be believed when they make allegations of sexual misconduct.
This is exactly the point, actually. Each of those viewpoints should be honestly considered. Otherwise, you have little logical and reasoned basis with which to argue against them. It's one of the steps in The Classical Argument. It is also a mindset that better lends itself to being open to at least hearing out other viewpoints, and, assuming your argument is sound, serves to strengthen it.
I don’t think frequent mind-changes indicate you’re doing something right. I’m surprised you seem to agree with that canard. Positions are usually taken and strengthened by experience and observation. To change them requires experience and observation that counteracts. I would suspect important positions on issues RARELY change, but when they do, it’s meaningful and somewhat lasting.
You're changing my words to suit your point. I didn't use the word frequent when talking about mind changes. I didn't use the word important when talking about positions that may change. I stand by my point, and I do so because I practice it every weekday, at the very least. I tell the staff who work for me that I don't have all the answers; that my way isn't necessarily the best way; that because we've always done it one way does not mean that is still the best way; and that if they have ideas I will always listen to them and we'll discuss them.
I function this way for a number of reasons. I know that I am relatively young. Some of the folks who work for me have been doing insurance since before I was born. I know that things can nearly always be improved upon. I believe that the world changes and sometimes (not always) we have to change with the world. I know that sometimes we get tunnel vision, and it takes another to see outside the tunnel. And so I fairly regularly have my mind changed after due consideration and discussion.
I try to do the same with other things, political or otherwise. I certainly have closely-held and unwavering principles, and I don't always succeed in giving an opposing viewpoint due consideration. I'm only human. But I've had my mind changed on some fairly significant issues.