Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So everyone is either with you or against you. There is no room in your world for anyone who does not worship the ground you walk on. Basically you see yourself as a god among men. That about sum up your personal viewpoint on life?
Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil.
I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades. There is no excuse for it. Hand ups work hand outs do not work. Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs. You are therefore, evil. Satan's spawn.
You are a lying piece dung.Projection identified. Nice try at twisting what I said into some evil.
I always put people first, that is the core of liberalism. Especially the least among us, the young, the old, the disabled and the poor. If you cause harm to people either directly or through some sick ideology that creates sick policies based of social Darwinism, then you are one of the executioners. I never side with the executioners.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades. There is no excuse for it. Hand ups work hand outs do not work. Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs. You are therefore, evil. Satan's spawn.
BULLSHIT! Liberals believe in a hand up. Conservatives believe in a hand to the face. Conservatives are NOT for a hand up. They never have and never will be. Conservatives at every turn have spent millions on propaganda to slander, defame, denigrate, smear, disparage, discredit and vilify hand UP programs going all the way back to the War on Poverty, a HAND UP program.
You are a lying piece dung.Modern liberals have been pushing vile despicable social policies of redistributing wealth for decades. There is no excuse for it. Hand ups work hand outs do not work. Conservatives are in favor of hand ups not hand outs. You are therefore, evil. Satan's spawn.
BULLSHIT! Liberals believe in a hand up. Conservatives believe in a hand to the face. Conservatives are NOT for a hand up. They never have and never will be. Conservatives at every turn have spent millions on propaganda to slander, defame, denigrate, smear, disparage, discredit and vilify hand UP programs going all the way back to the War on Poverty, a HAND UP program.
Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
Simple work ethic is lost on the Liberal.
Stay at home check collectors add nothing to society or the GDP.
Liberals question my business practicum. I simply tell them to practice business. And to that I am met with blank stares.
So you tell them to empty their own garbage cans.
Simple work ethic is lost on the Liberal.
Stay at home check collectors add nothing to society or the GDP.
It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
You are wrong. Conservatism has never been worthy of respect. They are the scourge of mankind. It's the manifestation of authoritarian parenting that metastasizes in adults.
It's pretty safe to say any time you find your post language using absolutes and extremes, you're probably playing outside the lines.
In all fairness Pogo, you are one of the more partisan posters on the board, so your complaints are rich irony.
Am I now... from the wag who calls anyone with a variant view "khmer rouge"...
Am I now... from the wag who calls anyone with a variant view "khmer rouge"...
Just those who want to purge the nation of all who fail to serve your shameful party..
Oh, and I was not the one placing myself above the fray, that was you - sporky...
Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
"your party"
Not only making my point for me but amplifying it. Classic.
It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
But the statement itself has nothing to do with building things up or tearing things down. It is a statement of fact without any partisan or ideological reference. Why can't it be addressed on that basis? Off to take an elderly relative to the doctor here. Back later.
Rules for Radicals said:* RULE 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources money and people. Have-Nots must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people. It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals dont address the real issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entitys very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. Theyll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyre doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid un-fun activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Dont become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred managements wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because youre caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Because the folks who have worked their whole lives to build things up don't like the folks who have worked their whole lives to tear it down?
But the statement itself has nothing to do with building things up or tearing things down. It is a statement of fact without any partisan or ideological reference. Why can't it be addressed on that basis? Off to take an elderly relative to the doctor here. Back later.
Deflection is a tactic employed by all people. If the facts don't support your policy, deflect, obfuscate, curse, call em names,... Here is the list of tactics outlined in Rules for Radicals:
Rules for Radicals said:* RULE 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from 2 main sources money and people. Have-Nots must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: Never go outside the expertise of your people. It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals dont address the real issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entitys very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. Its irrational. Its infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. Theyll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. Theyre doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid un-fun activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Dont become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive. Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred managements wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because youre caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
It is soooooo difficult to stay on topic once the insults start flying, isn't it eh boys? But yes, those who accuse others of blind partisanship when they themselves are passionately partisan do appear hypocritical. And those who make extreme statements about others appear hateful and mean spirited and clueless about the realities. And it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about much of anything.
And though liberalism seems to produce an excessive amount of that kind of nonsense--I still say it is the rare liberal who CAN focus on a topic separate from accusing or blaming somebody else--I can't say it is totally unique to liberals. There are some conservatives who are equally as irrational and equally ad hominem if they don't agree with another's conservative pespective. Conservatives usually can articulate a non ad hominem rationale for a point of view, however. So far, I don't find many liberals who can.
For instance, regardless of their circumstances or how just we may believe it to be that a person is receiving public assistance, it is a FACT that those who receive public money that they did not work for do not contribute to the GDP. Rather every penny they receive x 3 drains resources from the economy. But the discussion can never be about just that can it? It invariably dissolves into the "hard heartedness, selfishness, mean spiritedness. etc. of conservatives" or the "mushy, communist, ignorance, self serving dishonesty etc. of liberals."
Why is that? Why can't a statement of fact be stated without it dissolving into an ideological and/or partisan food fight?
