PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Rush on January 23, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
-
This is a fascinating listen, if you can get past the first couple of minutes. Gets down to the bedrock of modern liberalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
-
What qualifies that person as an expert?
Does one ask a liberal what is the core of a conservative?
Or ask a populist what the core is of a libertarian?
-
I clicked on here thinking you'd be soliciting answers.
-
I clicked on here thinking you'd be soliciting answers.
Even if he wasn't, why not provide some?
-
I clicked on here thinking you'd be soliciting answers.
Actually I am. I don't agree with everything this guy says. I think he nails the fundamentals, such as the expectation that we all should have equally good outcomes and that this is even possible, but without critical analysis of how we're supposed to achieve that.
Liberalism used to at least have a vision of some future utopia, and today it's based on nothing more than, "If it's America, it's evil. If it's successful, it's evil (unless it's in the entertainment industry). If it's Western Civilization, it's evil. If it's Christian (or Judaism), it's evil. If it's white straight male, it's evil. If it's fossil fuel energy, it's evil," and so on, because these ideas are now woven into the culture so tightly the younger generations don't even question it, like the fish doesn't question the water.
I was a liberal as a young person when the vision was there. I still am on many social issues. But when it came to wealth redistribution and economic collectivism, I questioned the logic of how this would actually work in the real world. No liberal could give me a convincing description of how it could end in anything but failure. To this day they can't. I always had trouble understanding why they cling to those beliefs despite this, but this video somewhat explains why.
So maybe I'm soliciting thoughts on that. If you're a liberal and you believe for example, money should be taken from those who earn it and given to those who don't, how do you reconcile that with the natural human tendency to then stop working if what you earn is taken from you, and to stop working if support is just given to you? The whole of society's productivity declines because incentive is taken away. How do you NOT see that? The answer in this video is, because you're brainwashed from the age of 5 to not think too hard about it. I guess I'm wondering if you agree with that, or if not, what's your alternative explanation?
-
Liberalism used to at least have a vision of some future utopia, and today it's based on nothing more than, "If it's America, it's evil. If it's successful, it's evil (unless it's in the entertainment industry). If it's Western Civilization, it's evil. If it's Christian (or Judaism), it's evil. If it's white straight male, it's evil. If it's fossil fuel energy, it's evil," and so on, because these ideas are now woven into the culture so tightly the younger generations don't even question it, like the fish doesn't question the water.
I was a liberal as a young person when the vision was there. I still am on many social issues. But when it came to wealth redistribution and economic collectivism, I questioned the logic of how this would actually work in the real world. No liberal could give me a convincing description of how it could end in anything but failure. To this day they can't. I always had trouble understanding why they cling to those beliefs despite this, but this video somewhat explains why.
So maybe I'm soliciting thoughts on that. If you're a liberal and you believe for example, money should be taken from those who earn it and given to those who don't, how do you reconcile that with the natural human tendency to then stop working if what you earn is taken from you, and to stop working if support is just given to you? The whole of society's productivity declines because incentive is taken away. How do you NOT see that? The answer in this video is, because you're brainwashed from the age of 5 to not think too hard about it. I guess I'm wondering if you agree with that, or if not, what's your alternative explanation?
Good points. In addition, the Left (Liberal/Progressives/Democrats) think that anything traditional American is evil, and "Nazi". Yet they want to take our rights away, one by one. The Left wants to subjugate use, and make us slaves. Meanwhile, I'm in my basement, making bullets. :)
-
We watched that Heritage Foundation video some years ago. I remember finding it because I was so frustrated trying to talk to liberals that I googled "how liberals think."
Listening to the video, I heard the reasoning. But you have to really, really contort your thinking to hold onto it. And of course the reasoning is utterly vacuous. Perhaps that is why liberals tend to blow up or leave the room when required actually to think.
Asechrest has referred to the quote that a sign of intelligence is to be able to hold conflicting ideas and still function. So, take a look at the virtue-signalling woman who was removed from her flight (on another thread). She is denouncing a person she doesn't even know because he supports Trump. She leaps to the conclusion that he thinks climate change is a myth. And so on. Then she turns to the airline employee trying to oust her and says her husband has just lost his mother and how could the airline not understand his need to just get home, and to be treated kindly? On all points she KNOWS she is RIGHT, even though she is all over the map and clearly not functioning well. If she were, she would not be getting removed from the plane.
Similarly, the Women's March. They object to Trump's language, but write foul names for their own body parts in body paint on themselves, and carry signs with crude drawings of their body parts. Black women didn't like white women participating. Pro-abortion women didn't want pro-life women participating. They can't even agree among themselves what they stand for.
In recent years, adding to the weird contorted thinking of liberals are the concepts of virtue signalling and holiness spirals.
You know, "I adopted a child from India." "Well, I adopted a child from Bangladesh." "I adopted a handicapped child from the Sudan." And so on.
And as you say, Rush, the creating of binary thinking has driven the nail into the coffin of decency and dialogue in the public sphere:
Liberalism used to at least have a vision of some future utopia, and today it's based on nothing more than, "If it's America, it's evil. If it's successful, it's evil (unless it's in the entertainment industry). If it's Western Civilization, it's evil. If it's Christian (or Judaism), it's evil. If it's white straight male, it's evil. If it's fossil fuel energy, it's evil," and so on, because these ideas are now woven into the culture so tightly the younger generations don't even question it, like the fish doesn't question the water.
Decent people are beginning to fight back. I hope it is not too late.
-
It was about 15, or so, years ago that Rush Limbaugh commented that someday the left would overstep so far that the country would snap back and the result would be very painful because liberals had such success getting their own way about things, for so long.
I think that day came and the result is Donald Trump. Even though i was strongly against him, I understood that the appeal was his never-give-an-inch tendency to stand up to them, ignore every rule of political correctness and give the rest of us hope that the crushing leftist bullshit was about to end.
Liberals have no clue what they stand for, or what they believe. That went out the door a generation ago. These blind babies haven't been told no in so long they think it's a crime when it happens.
Remember the snowflakes that called the police because they were, "frightened, and in pain" because someone wrote the word Trump on an erasable white board? Snowflakes are the direct result of vote buying by democrat politicians, who gave them everything at our expense and demanded we be glad to be fleeced by them.
The contributing factor are public school, teach union, imbeciles who think a one inch by one inch magazine photo of a hunting rifle is the same as an active shooter. Those assholes have raised a generation of useless auto-bots, who can't think for themselves, because they were brow beaten every time they thought an original thought.
College professors with the same devotion to truth as old triple digit IQ, Steingar have poisoned the well of education until it has become an echo chamber of stupidity and devotion to whatever they demand, which is always subject to change without notice. Public sector unions have become a political bribery scam instead of anything resembling what they are intended to be. The result is piss poor performance and pathetic results.
Government has been infiltrated by a generation of scavengers who steal like normal people breathe.
it had to end and the party ended on January 20th.
-
What I believe in is everyone should have the same potential to live up to their abilities. Anything less is a waste.
-
What I believe in is everyone should have the same potential to live up to their abilities. Anything less is a waste.
So, would your belief require that we limit the potential of some in order for everyone to have the same potential?
-
So, would your belief require that we limit the potential of some in order for everyone to have the same potential?
I don't think that is what Steingar meant, although I do think he worded it awkwardly. He acknowledges that not everyone has the same abilities. Everyone should have the same potential to live up to those abilities. The word "potential" is where it gets a little sticky.
I would have said that everyone should have the same rights and freedom to live up to their potential. I think it says the same thing though. If anyone fails to live up to their own potential, then that is on them and if someone is an over achiever, then good for them. Their rewards in life are commensurate with their achievement, not their potential. Tricky words, but it boils down to persona responsibility that is not arbitrarily limited by others.
-
For example, I'm thinking about the situation when a parent helps out a child. An affluent parent can provide more help to a child than a poor parent.
Is the affluent child to be denied the benefits provided by the parent?
-
For example, I'm thinking about the situation when a parent helps out a child. An affluent parent can provide more help to a child than a poor parent.
Is the affluent child to be denied the benefits provided by the parent?
No.
The ability to help your child is one of the benefits of your success. There are plenty of ways that even a poor parent can help their child rise to their potential. If they fail to do that, that is on them.
-
A liberal dumping her core liberalness for all to see. Virtue signaling at its most embarrassing.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=80426
-
I find it somewhat incredible that there are actually live people about like that.
-
My problem is that there are children born poor who have potential, but that can be stymied by their circumstances. I think the government should function as a tool to assist worthy but socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals achieve the same success as their affluent counterparts.
There will always be those who are worse off, it is unavoidable. I'd just like anyone to have the opportunity to be better off if they can manage it. Conservatives will scream at the top of their lungs about how this is already the case. However, I have seen and read numerous metrics saying otherwise.
-
I think the government should function as a tool to assist worthy but socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals achieve the same success as their affluent counterparts.
That is not the role of the federal government.
-
My problem is that there are children born poor who have potential, but that can be stymied by their circumstances. I think the government should function as a tool to assist worthy but socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals achieve the same success as their affluent counterparts.
There will always be those who are worse off, it is unavoidable. I'd just like anyone to have the opportunity to be better off if they can manage it. Conservatives will scream at the top of their lungs about how this is already the case. However, I have seen and read numerous metrics saying otherwise.
You mean poor children like Oprah Winfrey, Ben Carson, Herman Cain.
-
That is not the role of the federal government.
We must agree to disagree. There is no one else to fulfill this purpose, and if unfulfilled the poor will stay that way forever and become disenfranchised. That is not a good thing for any civilization.
-
We must agree to disagree. There is no one else to fulfill this purpose, and if unfulfilled the poor will stay that way forever and become disenfranchised. That is not a good thing for any civilization.
It doesn't take a village, it takes an intact, functional family.
-
I think the government should function as a tool to assist worthy but socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals achieve the same success as their affluent counterparts.
Who decides who is worthy? Is there some objective test of worthy? How about unworthy but advantaged individuals. Should we deprive them of their advantage to be fair? Is it fair to let unworthy disadvantaged individuals suffer?
-
We must agree to disagree. There is no one else to fulfill this purpose, and if unfulfilled the poor will stay that way forever and become disenfranchised. That is not a good thing for any civilization.
I believe our Constitution completely addresses your concerns. All we need to do is enforce it and live by it.
In general, the playing field in this country is level. The only difference is where people are lined up at the start, but where they go is up to them.
-
and we see what appears to be a core concept for the liberal: Government is inevitably the solution for the liberal. If the government doesn't do it, than it can't possibly be done.
-
We must agree to disagree. There is no one else to fulfill this purpose, and if unfulfilled the poor will stay that way forever and become disenfranchised. That is not a good thing for any civilization.
The concept that government can choose those who win and those who lose is as stupid as it is unapproachable. Believing that you, or your political cronies are worthy to decide for everyone else who succeeds and who fails based on feelings and emotions is baseless, pathetic and points out how dangerous the real progressive liberal is to freedom.
-
Who decides who is worthy? Is there some objective test of worthy?
Simple academics come to mind. A good example is scholarship money for academically gifted but socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Not particularly popular with Conservatives, but they have functioned admirably in the past.
-
Simple academics come to mind. A good example is scholarship money for academically gifted but socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Not particularly popular with Conservatives, but they have functioned admirably in the past.
why should that come from the taxpayers?
-
Who makes up Government? People that largely can't get jobs in the real world. Do we really want to trust these people for our future?
-
Who makes up Government? People that largely can't get jobs in the real world. Do we really want to trust these people for our future?
From the time I got my very first job in 1976, I have been told by various experts and advisors not to account for Social Security in my retirement planning, but rather to pretend that it doesn't exist, because when I retire, it might not.
So I am always very skeptical of the government, and largely distrust it, especially in meeting any of my basic requirements.
-
From the time I got my very first job in 1976, I have been told by various experts and advisors not to account for Social Security in my retirement planning, but rather to pretend that it doesn't exist, because when I retire, it might not.
So I am always very skeptical of the government, and largely distrust it, especially in meeting any of my basic requirements.
I have contributed the maximum to SS for the past 30 years. (I contributed for almost 50 years but the for first 20 I wasn't at the max). I will start drawing SS next year and I just hope it covers my liquor bill.
-
Who makes up Government? People that largely can't get jobs in the real world.
;) Really Anthony... you shouldn't be dissin President Trumps supporters like that! ;)
Do we really want to trust these people for our future?
You might be right about that!!
-
I have contributed the maximum to SS for the past 30 years. (I contributed for almost 50 years but the for first 20 I wasn't at the max). I will start drawing SS next year and I just hope it covers my liquor bill.
I'm hoping it just covers AvGas! (I'm in a similar situation)
-
Simple academics come to mind. A good example is scholarship money for academically gifted but socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Not particularly popular with Conservatives, but they have functioned admirably in the past.
I'm not surprised you think that scholarships is a good model.
But at least not all scholarship funds come from taxpayers.
-
I'm not surprised you think that scholarships is a good model.
But at least not all scholarship funds come from taxpayers.
Well.. the GI Bill following WWII (and the continuing program) was very successful. Seems to me that government scholarships do have many more benefits than drawbacks.
-
Well.. the GI Bill following WWII (and the continuing program) was very successful. Seems to me that government scholarships do have many more benefits than drawbacks.
yeah, sure. The GI Bill is exactly like the scholarship programs at colleges.
::)
-
yeah, sure. The GI Bill is exactly like the scholarship programs at colleges.
::)
The GI bill is a scholarship program at many colleges and Universities. It also is a scholarship program for worthy individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The military is enriched for such individuals, who clearly and in exemplary fashion demonstrate their worth by their self-less service to their country.
-
You must have taken your stupid pill today. The GI bill is a scholarship program at many colleges and Universities. It also is a scholarship program for worthy individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The military is enriched for such individuals, who clearly and in exemplary fashion demonstrate their worth by their self-less service to their country.
His point was obviously that GI bill money wasn't being disbursed because the recipients are "academically gifted" or even just "socioeconomically disadvantaged." It was for their sacrifice and service. So the GI bill didn't satisfy the one "good example" criteria you gave of "worthy". Given your past statements it wasn't clear you thought much of anyone who "chose" an IQ under 100.
While the question of who is "worthy" may interest others, I think the discussion about public funding of education is beside the point. Universal education and its funding have been a resolved problem for literally centuries. And the U.S. already spends more (or is near the top) per student than any other country (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/)). For the purposes of balancing government funding, education spending is primarily a local issue, not a national one. At the national level it is only a mild stretch to call the amounts involved a rounding issue - at least when compared to the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
-
I am a recipient of the GI Bill. In my opinion, it was not a scholarship in any sense of the word.
My GI Bill required me to put money in the system and then the government matched my contribution $3 for every $1 I contributed.
I put in my 4 years of active duty (followed by 2 years inactive reserve) to complete my 6 year obligation. During the 4 years active duty I worked very hard to earn that benefit.
-
You must have taken your stupid pill today. The GI bill is a scholarship program at many colleges and Universities. It also is a scholarship program for worthy individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The military is enriched for such individuals, who clearly and in exemplary fashion demonstrate their worth by their self-less service to their country.
How is it a scholarship when servicemembers who want to take advantage of it had to pay $100 a month for a year to get that benefit? That's how it used to be under the Montgomery GI Bill, not sure how the Post 9/11 GI Bill works.
-
You must have taken your stupid pill today. The GI bill is a scholarship program at many colleges and Universities. It also is a scholarship program for worthy individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The military is enriched for such individuals, who clearly and in exemplary fashion demonstrate their worth by their self-less service to their country.
I think you're being sarcastic or you're applying too much nobility to this. When I joined the Navy, it wasn't because I wanted to demonstrate self-less service to my country, it was because I had screwed off in college and was one semester away from getting kicked out. I needed a way to live while I figured out what I wanted to do. Four years, three months later I drove out of Gate 5 at Norfolk with some experience, just a tiny bit of maturity and the GI bill to get me through finishing school while I also worked for the university. That led the next step, which let to the next step and 25 years later I'm here with an MBA, a decent job that I have to work too hard at and still a burning desire to own an airplane that I really cannot afford because someone here spends all our money.
-
I think you're being sarcastic or you're applying too much nobility to this. When I joined the Navy, it wasn't because I wanted to demonstrate self-less service to my country, it was because I had screwed off in college and was one semester away from getting kicked out. I needed a way to live while I figured out what I wanted to do. Four years, three months later I drove out of Gate 5 at Norfolk with some experience, just a tiny bit of maturity and the GI bill to get me through finishing school while I also worked for the university. That led the next step, which let to the next step and 25 years later I'm here with an MBA, a decent job that I have to work too hard at and still a burning desire to own an airplane that I really cannot afford because someone here spends all our money.
I had F-14's behind me over Norfolk. The Navy ATC controller, said "company aircraft at your six o'clock." I replied that I was no competition for them. :)
Thank you for your service, and I totally agree with you.
-
I think you're being sarcastic or you're applying too much nobility to this. When I joined the Navy, it wasn't because I wanted to demonstrate self-less service to my country, it was because I had screwed off in college and was one semester away from getting kicked out. I needed a way to live while I figured out what I wanted to do. Four years, three months later I drove out of Gate 5 at Norfolk with some experience, just a tiny bit of maturity and the GI bill to get me through finishing school while I also worked for the university. That led the next step, which let to the next step and 25 years later I'm here with an MBA, a decent job that I have to work too hard at and still a burning desire to own an airplane that I really cannot afford because someone here spends all our money.
You might not have set out to do selfless service to our nation, but you certainly ended up doing so and earning my grateful Thanks as well.
-
I was on a submarine. There is no need to thank me. We were never there.
-
Well.. the GI Bill following WWII (and the continuing program) was very successful. Seems to me that government scholarships do have many more benefits than drawbacks.
btw - I think you should compare/contrast "scholarship" and "benefit"
And let's not ignore some of the fraudulent ,or at least questionable, education institutes/programs that sprang into existence to go after the benefits paid to veterans and active duty servicemen.
-
I was on a submarine. There is no need to thank me. We were never there.
You're a better man than I am (Gunga Din Flynn)
I love the water, the open ocean and surface boats.
I also love submarines, but I have to admit, I think I would freak out pretty quickly once I figured out where I was and everything that could kill me down there. Besides, I am slightly claustrophobic.
I shall give your posts about 1% more credence now that I know that.
But still, it is obvious to me that you were never there because there are no pictures. Of course, the last guy to take pics of the inside of a sub wound up futilely asking Obama for a pardon.
-
You must have taken your stupid pill today. The GI bill is a scholarship program at many colleges and Universities. It also is a scholarship program for worthy individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The military is enriched for such individuals, who clearly and in exemplary fashion demonstrate their worth by their self-less service to their country.
STUPID doesn't begin to describe your post. The GI bill is the culmination of a compact between those who enlist in the armed services, serve their hitch honorably, and do so for far inferior pay, and get a little help with college as part of the deal.
Unlike your concept of free college for all, the GI Bill is part of the remuneration for work given, not a giveaway for layabouts.
I realize that work for pay is a foreign concept to you, but try and wrap your tiny IQ around the concept of pay and college for those who choose that type of compensation.
-
You're a better man than I am (Gunga Din Flynn)
I love the water, the open ocean and surface boats.
I also love submarines, but I have to admit, I think I would freak out pretty quickly once I figured out where I was and everything that could kill me down there. Besides, I am slightly claustrophobic.
I shall give your posts about 1% more credence now that I know that.
But still, it is obvious to me that you were never there because there are no pictures. Of course, the last guy to take pics of the inside of a sub wound up futilely asking Obama for a pardon.
Yes, well he took the pictures in the engineering spaces, which is absolutely verboten. I have one of me in my rack, total beefcake.
living on a sub is a lot like living in a trailer home with 50 of your closest friends and enemies but you can't go outside.
-
I have one of me in my rack, total beefcake.
Uhh, we'll take your word for it. After all, this is not PoA...
-
Uhh, we'll take your word for it. After all, this is not PoA...
Keep in mind, I didn't say what kind of cow.