Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Its Progressivism Stupid! Not Liberalism
#21
(01-23-2016, 06:37 PM)WmLambert Wrote: The things that Trump is bound to at this point, is to stop illegal immigration, strengthen the Military, Balance the budget, stop Corporate Inversion by lowering taxes, end ObamaCare, fix the VA, and punish the evil doers. He needs more than Carl Icon to work with him, though. But the same goes with everyone else, as well. Cruz has the best resumé, in my opinion, but who knows what politicians may do after getting elected?

Have you actually taken the time to go back and read, or listen to the things The Donald has actually said and done over time? Or do you really care? After all, he is now officially a Republican, and to you that is all that really counts, correct?

And do you actually believe this.....fellow will balance the budget, stop corporate inversion by lowering taxes, when he actually stated the opposite? And do you actually believe he would end Obamacare, fix the VA and punish evil doers? Did you even bother listening to his words in that video above? Or is your mind already solidified?

The TrumpBots are so addicted to his promises and outrageous words, that almost nothing is going to change their minds. Things like this mocking statement he made about some reporter writing that his followers would follow him even if he stood on 5th avenue and started shooting people.





And in spite of all this, I'd be willing to bet that if he did do that and was still the nominee, you would vote for him, because he has an "R" at the end of his name, right?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#22
(01-23-2016, 06:51 PM)John L Wrote: ...It has NOT changed for all time. If you are willing to compromise your standards and go along to get along,...

But it has changed in the most important way. Language is the product of communication, and if those who use the term use it incorrectly, you only have one decisions you can make: You can use a term they do not understand and undermine every point you want to make due to too much noise in the system - or you can take exorbitant time trying to define your terms and ensuring mutual understanding before even getting to your informational efforts. With either of these erudite strategies, your message is lost, even though it should be a telling one. The only approach that works is to communicate - and if that means lowering yourself to the standards that your audience can understand, then you just have to buck up and do it.

Fixing broken vocabulary is a whole 'nother effort we need to make.

Talking to the deaf means you must master AMESLAN or become a good pantomimist. Shouting what they can't hear makes little sense. However; sometimes the breach can be straddled and a lazy vocabulary can be enriched a bit - but doing so still needs to be secondary to pure communication. Even good vocabulary and grammar can be a problem. Think about the sentence: "The Panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Incorrect grammar puts in too many commas and depicts a gun-crazy Panda on the lam.
Reply
#23
(01-23-2016, 08:27 PM)WmLambert Wrote:
(01-23-2016, 06:51 PM)John L Wrote: ...It has NOT changed for all time. If you are willing to compromise your standards and go along to get along,...

But it has changed in the most important way. Language is the product of communication, and if those who use the term use it incorrectly, you only have one decisions you can make: You can use a term they do not understand and undermine every point you want to make due to too much noise in the system - or you can take exorbitant time trying to define your terms and ensuring mutual understanding before even getting to your informational efforts. With either of these erudite strategies, your message is lost, even though it should be a telling one. The only approach that works is to communicate - and if that means lowering yourself to the standards that your audience can understand, then you just have to buck up and do it.

Fixing broken vocabulary is a whole 'nother effort we need to make.

Talking to the deaf means you must master AMESLAN or become a good pantomimist. Shouting what they can't hear makes little sense. However; sometimes the breach can be straddled and a lazy vocabulary can be enriched a bit - but doing so still needs to be secondary to pure communication. Even good vocabulary and grammar can be a problem. Think about the sentence: "The Panda eats, shoots, and leaves. Incorrect grammar puts in too many commas and depicts a gun-crazy Panda on the lam.

Like it or not, it is in the process of being fixed. And the movement is gaining momentum. In just the last few short years, this site has been gathering signatures of professional college professors and lecturers.

Liberalism Unrelinquished: A STATEMENT OF NO SURRENDER ON THE WORD “LIBERAL.”

And note the high percentage of college economics professors, who are signatories of the statement, with many of them from George Mason University, the home of von Hayek Austrian Economics. A couple of years ago, when this first came out, I tried to get entered onto the list, but then they were aiming for economists. Now they have opened it up to others, and my name is also on the list.

Even the list of article about the facts, are much larger than the ones they have linked at that site.

Wherever I post, and especially on Breitbart, I constantly instruct others and offer links to the truth. You won't believe the number of converts I have made, OR the huge number of people already literate to the truth. Its huge, and whenever someone makes fun of my posts, others come back and defend my point.

So get used to the return of "Liberalism" to its rightful place in history. I hope FDR is rotting in hell for his almost singlehanded destruction of this noble word. That site has many articles listed with the same message. They don't advertise, but you can bet your bottom dollar that there are thousands of college economics students who are being taught formally and passing it on.

Limbaugh is the Worst person in the fight, because he has "doubled down" on this, after a few callers called him out on it. Now James Golden(Bo Snerdley) has orders not to even consider anyone coming on and making him look bad. And all because of his subconscious drive to appease his Daddy.

If he wasn't helping brainwash millions of right thinkers, this drive would already be mostly over. And people like you aren't helping things, because you are so stuck on Rush.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#24
I agree with the effort to raise the vocabulary of those who don't get it. But the main point is still most important: To communicate with these people contemporaneously, you must first speak their language.

If fixing the definition of the word is all you want, then "no problemo!" However; if you wish to make a point about how economics works, wasting time defining terms actually loses ground.
Reply
#25
So, I take it that you are saying it all depends on what the word 'is' is. I get it now. Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#26
No - "is" is understandable and easily defined so all are on the same page. But if you mean to tell me you wouldn't need half an hour minimum to plead your case to a Harvard professor who disagrees with you, then you are blowing smoke.

As I said - it is communicating which is important - not which words are used to do so. We both agree on how the terms should be used.
Reply
#27
(01-26-2016, 03:04 PM)WmLambert Wrote: No - "is" is understandable and easily defined so all are on the same page. But if you mean to tell me you wouldn't need half an hour minimum to plead your case to a Harvard professor who disagrees with you, then you are blowing smoke.

As I said - it is communicating which is important - not which words are used to do so. We both agree on how the terms should be used.

What you are really saying Bill, is "Take the easy way", because doing something right is too much trouble. There is a definition for that. Its called intellectual laziness.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#28
(01-26-2016, 03:33 PM)John L Wrote: ...What you are really saying Bill, is "Take the easy way", because doing something right is too much trouble. There is a definition for that. Its called intellectual laziness.

No. What I'm saying is to do things the right way, not the Easy way that strokes one's personal ego - but doesn't accomplish what one wants to do. The only way doing something makes things too much trouble is only if it does not work. Otherwise; it makes just enough trouble and just enough time. The "Easy" way is usually just going all pro forma and going through the steps one wants to go through, rather than take the time and effort to win arguments.

I agree that the effort to correct the disinformation is a good crusade in its own right - but don't confuse using "established" knowledge and definitions that are actually moot to try to win points.

There is a passage in "The Rosary Murders" that applies: a nun went into a neighborhood market in Indian Village in a Detroit slum area. The cashier counted out her change in such a black-ghetto patois that the nun shook her head and told her that until she fixes her language she will always be stuck in the ghetto. The cashier took offense and didn't learn. The nun ended up murdered in a bathtub with Rosary beads in her hands - but that's a different part of the story.
Reply
#29
You're right Bill, while I may be doing the right thing, I am naturally doing it for all the wrong reasons, winning points being but just one. I'll try to be better in the future, ok? Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#30
No, you're still being argumentative. You are encompassing all efforts to get people to understand disinformational premises with the idea that it is all or nothing. Either they abandon deeply-held ideas that they cling to, or nothing. How do you get lemmings not to run off the cliff? Do you make all of them turn at once, or get a few to turn so the others will follow them to safety? As the information gets accepted, the definitions and labels can follow after. You don't have to do everything at once. If you do what you can, then eventually the whole victory will come faster than by demanding the entire capitulation at once. That's sort of what Islam demands. If you don't believe it all - you get killed.

We want the same thing. I just want strategies and tactics that work. Surely you had classes on that at the Citadel?

My tactic is to always use the terms correctly and help others understand their usage is not what they think it is. But most important is to project the meanings and issues coming from them. Hopefully the acceptance will come.

Do realize that there is a concerted effort from the other side to disinform and muddy the water. You can get someone to understand and agree on one day, and have them switched back the next, because the disinformers have more thoroughly created schedules of reinforcement to their ends. We do what we can, and believe in winning the end game, not every battle.
Reply
#31
I've been watching Alan Dershowitz with a little bit of awe and disbelief of late, because he is looking and sounding more and more like a true Classic Liberal.  I think he is changing in his old age.  

I saw this interview this morning, and it was really very good.

Alan Dershowitz on defending free speech on college campuses



___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#32
Here is yet one more reason WHY it is so important to call a Spade a Spade, and start labeling our Leftists as Progressives, not Liberals.  As Glenn Beck has stated very clearly, the difference between Communism and Progressivism(i.e. Fascism) is the difference between "Revolution" and "Evolution".  Progressives have, and are still, using the later to get their ideals in place.  They slowly chip away at Liberty and force Collectivism on all.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty. 

Many nice tidbits here, especially how Herbert Hoover is exposed for his Progressive roots.  Nobody discusses him as a Big Time Progressive, but he was, and he also took the initial steps that made the Great Depression what it was, and opened the door for an even bigger Progressive.  And FDR was an earlier comrade in the movement.  

Progressivism America's Cancer


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#33
Notice how quickly this fellow becomes defensive and aggressive when he is forced to look into his own ideology and where it leads.  Other than the title's misuse of English for this video, everything else is so true.   S22

How to make a Progressive lose their shit.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#34
The only mistake he makes here is that he forgets to preface his Modern Liberalism is not inserting the phrase 'So Called', because that's all it is: 'So Called'.   Other than that little slip, he's right on.  S22

Matt Spalding on Progressivism's Assault on America's Founding: The Heritage Foundation 


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#35
This is about the one singe thing that gave the Progressive movement such a terribly bad name in the early 20th century.   And it is why they had to camouflage themselves under a new name in order to remain viable politically.   And just look at how successful they were, for all these decades.   S4

The night they ended Prohibition, December 5th 1933
[Image: 12940815_1028277657261047_1769811444_n.j...Mw%3D%3D.2]


Prohibition- Alcohol barrels to be burned (1924)
[Image: prohibition-alcohol-barrels-1924.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#36
I still say the repeal of Prohibition was the worst mistake America has ever made. While it lasted, many lives and families were saved. Many efforts were made to to repeal Prohibition, in election after election. They all failed, for 13 years. The only reason repeal won finally was apathy. Too many people did not bother to vote, since they thought the measure would just be defeated again. The stories most often told to give the impression that Prohibition was not working were not representative of the actual reality. They are propaganda, designed to discourage people from voting to re-institute Prohibition. But for myself, I will never use alcoholic beverages. And I will advise anyone who wants to come to Christ, to remember it is a moral obligation of all Christians to regard the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, which should not be polluted or compromised by practices that dull the mind, and interfere with the Holy Spirit speaking to us and prompting our conscience. See 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20.
Reply
#37
Sigh, Ron........legislating morals is the dumbest, least effective, and guaranteed root of rebellion there ever was. You cannot make others willingly do something you demand, if they are not willing to morally go along with you.

Besides, you are all for restricting my liberties to take a drink, when I am a responsible adult.

It never works Ron. Don't you understand that? You cannot effectively legislate morals.

You have type two diabetes. That means you are overweight at best. Should someone also legislate the abolition of sugar, or refined carbohydrates from everyone's diet? Hey, if they are not smart enough to eat responsibly, they should be made to do so.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#38
Sugars, fats, starches, and the other food components that promote elevated blood glucose levels, are necessary. There is NO NEED for alcohol. It is not legislating morality to outlaw merchandising of alcoholic beverages, as if it were just someone's opinion that alcohol is bad; it is legislating an industry that is based on merchandising a product that is demonstrably harmful to humanity. Alcohol is a poison. Period.

By the way, about sugar: I keep seeing efforts by some people to vilify all kinds of artificial sweeteners, such as Aspartame, and even Sucralose. Since they do not recommend any other artificial sweeteners, they leave the impression by implication that only sugar should be used. I suspect they are in the employ of, or are dupes of, the sugar industry. I have warned such people that with millions of diabetics in the country, by advocating that nothing but sugar should be used, they are in fact complicit with a criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder. They usually back off. (By the way, I recommend use of Stevia as the artificial sweetener of choice.)

As for your statement that "you cannot legislate morality," are you saying that the laws that forbid polygamy (bigamy) are impossible, and cannot work? Are you saying that the laws that prohibit child pornography cannot work, and should be abandoned? I would say that virtually ALL our laws are at least originally based on morality--and Christian morality at that.

Various lifestyle principles are either good or evil. Regardless of whether some church promotes them, they still remain objectively good or evil. If evil, they should be discouraged, if not outright forbidden. (I think tobacco in all its forms should be forbidden, because it is objectively evil. But at least it is discouraged by the high taxes on cigarettes, and the constant medical and health warnings, and the multiple programs available to help people quit smoking.) Good lifestyle principles, such as good nutrition, should be encouraged, and to a large extent, they are--such as by the fact that in most states, there is no sales tax on food.

I agree with the desire to prevent any church from being giving dictatorial power. But it is in the best interests of the state to indeed legislate morality (so we can all have a society to live in that is civilized), and it is proper for churches to inform the state of the moral principles they think are important. This is always the way it has been, since the founding of our republic. Where to draw the law between churches advising the state, and churches using the state to enforce their own establishments or institutions, is the real challenge, and remains the area where we could still go badly wrong as a nation. Current danger areas are laws regarding employment or vacation days on Christmas and Easter, and of course Sunday laws. As a nation, we have not crossed over the line in these areas--yet. But many individual states have already crossed the line.
Reply
#39
(05-19-2016, 12:43 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: As for your statement that "you cannot "Effectively" legislate morality," are you saying that the laws that forbid polygamy (bigamy) are impossible, and cannot work?

Shame on you for misquoting me.  You left out the word "effectively" Ron.  There are always some exceptions to almost everything in the universe.  "Effectively, Successfully" means the same thing.

Yep, that's what I am saying, and laws will not stop it.  I'm glad you brought this up, because I am currently going through landscape sites and gorging myself on great photography.  And Lo-and-Behold, what did I come across in the Atlantic?   There was this: Polygamists in 'The Rock'.  And while we are at it,  how about this in Nat. Geo.  

I hate to tell you Ron, there is far more of this going on that you can imagine.  And they aren't in prison, or being fined for breaking any laws.  I repeat,............."You cannot successfully legislate morals,.........Period!"

Do you know why monogamy is the cultural norm?  Well, I'll tell you.  It is the cultural norm because it is the only real successful way for humans to successfully pass their genes on to the next generation, and have a harmonious tribe/group/nation.  We learned all this back when early hominids were developing.  In your case, about eleven thousand years ago.  S5

China has been indirectly living this for years now, by only allowing one child per family.  Guess what happened as a result: selective infanticide is what resulted.  Little boys coming out of the 'yang' and no potential mates of the opposite sex.  What are these young males going to do if they cannot go overseas and get a female to follow him back?  Unless there is a somewhat equal number of eligible mating pairs, there will be friction, murder, and rebellion within any society. Are you finally getting the point I am making here Ron?

Quote:Are you saying that the laws that prohibit child pornography cannot work, and should be abandoned? I would say that virtually ALL our laws are at least originally based on morality--and Christian morality at that.

Ron, child pornography pertains to children, who are not legal adults.  Society naturally protects them, and because of this protection, the law punishes those who abuse them.  It is not because an adult has sex with a sub-adult, but the other way around.  It is because a sub-adult was forced to have sex with an adult.  Turn it around and start looking at it from the child's POV regarding the Rule of Law.  

Why do you think prosecuting adults who participate in other sex acts with other adults is not happening?  

Both of your examples are lame and you know it Ron.  I repeat,............."You cannot successfully legislate morals,.........Period!"  High moral standards Must be instilled within society, and passed down to successive generations, through Teaching these things.   They have to be Taught,......Period!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#40
Despite what you say--and it is your arguments that are lame--legislating morality is essential to maintaining civilization. Without legislating morality there is no civilization. We do not have our laws because we "evolved" them. We have our laws and moral standards because Judeo-Christianity taught us to think this way. Some moral standards we share with other cultures. Some we do not. Those that do not are not a part of Western Civilization, and are regarded as the backwards "third world."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)