In UNLV, I am a Psychology major and a Philosophy minor (undeclared). I have been spending a lot of time trying to prove, in a philosophical manner, a central tenet of individualism. If you read my previous posts I have made, my obvious bias toward individualism can be seen. When I was little, I thought that it was an undeniable fact that I was right, and that if logic were followed, everything I believed in would be proven. I now know this was naive and ignorant of me. This is because I had accepted, as an absolute, an axiom that I now seek to prove should be accepted by everyone. I said I would focus more on theory now that news is calming down, or to be more precise, is becoming more repetitive. (You can only do so many “Obama's taking away our rights, or violating our constitution” posts in a row) I shall focus on two axioms that most people seem to take for granted as being correct. I shall try to make this sound as non-philosophical as possible because, well, most people hate philosophy for that reason. So I will tone down the language so as to not bore the crap out of my > .01 reader per day. If someone happens to come across this and mistake it for an intelligent conversation, then feel free to post objections to me or my argument.
A crap load of people call themselves individualists or claim at some point that individual rights are important. This is probably the reason I began to believe my axiom was absolute. Alas, natural law theories like that are easily destroyed. I realized this when I was talking to a guy on campus at UNLV. He was an Obama stumper and naturally we got into a heated argument. Eventually I tried to get him to tell me what premise is his argument must be based of off for what he was telling me to be acceptable. Naturally the reaction I got was the question repeated back at me to which I gave the often used reply, “I believe that individual liberty and responsibility are the most sacred things in this world.” I was rebuffed with the reply “but how could we build a society?” Though memory may not serve me well enough for that to be an exact quote, his reply allows me to begin describing what believe, what I think everyone believes or should believe if they are conservatives or libertarians, and what I have begun to learn about the opposing ideology of the man I had that argument with.
Consider what I was saying first of all. Essentially I was explaining that I believed in liberty; which, in this case, is defined as freedom to choose. This is a central tenet of a philosophy called individualism. This is primarily a political philosophy, but I am trying to extend this to ethical debates as well. On the political side, this states that the smallest unit that possess its own rights and therefore must be respected in its own opinions and choices with regard to itself is an individual. To be more clear, every person must be respected and counted as far as their voice, opinions, beliefs, desires, and freedoms go. To be even more clear about this, it is an accepted fact that every individual possesses their own rights and these rights cannot be determined from an outside source without their own consent. This means that there is no reason that is good enough to deny any individual's rights unless that right is freely given. I am making the assumption that the word 'freely' leaves out all forms of coercion.
In this respect, I was making a statement about what I believe is right. That being that I have rights that cannot be taken from me, as Jefferson would put it, rights that are inalienable. If you are a conservative or a libertarian then you likely already believe, or think you believe this whole heartedly. The man I was talking to made a statement that spoke to the heart of the opposite belief. This belief is the negation of individualism, or that 'It is not a fact of the world that any individual has a right that cannot be violated under any circumstances.' In other words, if it serves some purpose that is deemed worthy, then an individuals rights may be violated if it serves that purpose. This is the axiom that a collectivist must take as being true to be considered a collectivist. (It could be argued that a collectivist must also believe that these violations must be for the 'collective good', but this is not integral to my argument. If it does bother you, then simply note that a collectivist is an anti-individualist and that my arguments would apply to all anti-individualists as well.)
Let me put this into context. If I were a politician who was also an individualist, and say there were people starving in Calcutta that I wanted to save, then I could do anything that I wanted so long as I never violated another person's rights. For instance, it would be wrong obviously to kill a man and feed him to the children in Calcutta as that would probably violate his right to make choices with regard to his own life. Pretty simple huh? It would also be wrong to steal money from people, or otherwise compel them through force to give their money to the people of Calcutta. This is because I would be violating their own individual rights to choose what they should do with their possessions. I personally do believe in charity, but this belief does not grant me the right to violate others rights. A collectivist on the other hand would have no qualms about doing any of this if he or she decided it was a good thing.
That is the difference between individualism and collectivism, it is that simple. However, both have extreme consequences as well that I have been wrestling with. Starting with collectivism, some people may not yet have a problem with this yet. After all, the collectivist could argue, what is wrong about taking some small percentage of everyone's income if it ends world hunger. Peter Singer actually makes several claims and even alludes to the idea that someone ought to do just that in “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, though to be fair, this is mostly a result of his argument pattern. Who could argue that famine is a worthy cause? Most religions actually state that it is a moral obligation of all their followers that they be generous. Ignoring that, could it be hard to accept that people's lives are unimportant?
This line of thinking may get you jumping on the bandwagon a little too early though. Note that I could use the same sort of logic to argue that all children in the world must be given education. After all, would it not be a crime to allow a single child to go without this benefit? Imagine being unable to get a job somewhere that does not include saying “pull up to the next window please”. In fact, if it could be argued that any cause imaginable could be undertaken in this manner given the proper argument. If the cause is good, then the collectivist must agree that an individuals rights can be violated to achieve it. This is dangerous. Take Obama for example. No one will doubt that he believes that we must strive to help the working poor and so he supports all sorts of programs and taxes to do so. Consider though the possibility of an ideological shift. Now it is considered true that it is in the best interest of the population to be taught a certain thing. Maybe this thing could be argued to help the working poor as well if everyone was taught and and believed this thing. Imagine now this thing was that certain people or groups of people should be made infertile. Margret Sanger believed that “the idiots and morons should not be allowed to reproduce” and see sought funds for her crusade, successfully might I add.
The collectivist might argue now “That is obviously wrong and should not be allowed.” I could argue back though, “consider how much food is being wasted on the useless. If the useless could no longer reproduce, then there would be more food left over for the poor. Also production would likely increase faster ending poverty on a planet wide scale. Is it not more right to save the lives of millions over the mere ability to reproduce? In order to avoid this type of trap, the collectivist would now be forced to add qualifiers to his original axiom; qualifiers like “unless it leads to personal mutilation” or “unless it leads to death”. These qualifiers are just arbitrations and therefore up to arbitration. Could I not argue that back then we thought it wrong to castrate people on the basis of who they are, but now we no longer think that. Unless a rule is an absolute by virtue of being itself or being based upon something that is based upon itself, then there is no foundation strong enough to keep an arbitrary rule like that from being violated.
This may make collectivists run to become individualists now. I myself am an individualist and I have done a great deal of thinking about what it means to be an individualist. As I believe there is no circumstance that justifies violating someone else's rights, then I must also believe that even if it meant the death of children in Calcutta, I cannot choose to take someone else's rights to help another no matter the circumstances. This is an obvious point and almost all conservatives and libertarians will agree with this. This goes much further too. For instance, take a hypothetical many people have encountered. Suppose you are the president and you are kidnapped by strange terrorists who take you to a secluded room. In this room you are confronted with your grandmother who is bound and gagged. You are told that you have only two choices, either shoot your grandmother or blow up a city in your country. What is the right choice? A lot of people would answer “the first one” and this is used often to prove what is called Utilitarianism. However in this case I would say that neither choice is right by the strict definition of it. Pretty simple and agreeable right? That fact that shooting your grandmother might not be as bad as nuking a city, does not make killing your grandmother a good thing. Further, as an individualist, you would be forced to try for the 'third option' so many action stars try in movies. This is because the other two choices violated someones rights and this option, though its success rate is probably very low, does not.
Even the last point I made could be accepted by conservatives and libertarians, though it would be remarked as being impractical and so could not be exercised in the way I described it. I would not disagree with such a statement; though we should strive to create that perfect world where no one ever needs to have their rights violated. Now I find it necessary though to point our some places where conservatives and some libertarians cease to follow the logic of the axiom. The first point is at torture. Obviously torture is wrong if your are torturing for the hell of it, but it is applauded if it is done for what is considered good. Obviously, if you believe that an individual has certain inalienable rights, then barring the possibility that you would argue the person being tortured lacks these rights for some reason, you must agree that torture is wrong. I am probably hated at this moment but read on for a second. Torture is wrong, but the same argument regarding grandma and the terrorists could be used to argue for torture. Note though that this still means that torture is still wrong, not that it is right. What is we had our hands on a terrorist and discovered through some reliable source that he possessed information that could stop a nuclear bomb from going off. Would it not be right to get the information by any means necessary? No, it would not be right, but it may be unavoidable. This argument sounds pretty impotent if I were trying to stop torture. My real purpose is not to stop that though. My point is to make apparent the fact that torture is not a good thing, or even an okay thing. As such, it should never be regarded as such and should be used as a last resort at all times. This attack is more an attack against the attitude about torture than an attack against torture itself.
Maybe most people could come to terms with the above. However, this is not the only problem I have come across. Consider gay marriage. It is my opinion that both sides have the proper solution wrong. The left overwhelmingly believe it is our duty to legalize gay marriage both on the state and federal level as no one has a right to say no to anyone regarding who they love or who they can marry. Many people who call themselves conservatives believe that gay marriage should be banned to protect the sanctity of marriage. Here is the simple truth with regard to individualism, both sides are wrong! The left tends to first make the correct point that we have no say in other peoples marriage practices, but then they throw that away by continuing to use the government. This behavior implicitly acknowledges the government's (and therefore everyone else's) say in what they do. A lovely way to contradict yourself. Of course any conservative that preaches for smaller and less intrusive governments is also contradicting him or herself when they then insist on regulating away a kind of marriage. In reality, government intervention must be removed entirely to avoid this problem. Note that I am not saying we must accept what anyone else does, lets face it, I am not pro-gay. I personally believe that a homosexual lifestyle is a stupid choice of lifestyle. However, if you grant the right to regulate marriage from one group, you have also implicitly given permission to have the same done to yourself. For this reason, and the fact that it is plain wrong, you cannot regulate marriage. For more information on this argument, read my previous post on marriage.
Individualism is obviously very anti-government control and regulation. In fact, if the logic is followed well, then it would seem that the best form of government the world ought to exist under, is the government that most closely comes to Anarchy as possible, while still holding enough power to prevent people from violating each other's individual rights. If ever it were no longer necessary to use government intervention to prevent murder, theft or rape, then it would follow that it was no longer necessary to have a government. This may seem insane but consider what government was used for in the first place. It was created with the sole purpose to prevent chaos and rampant crime, it was also created to protect its citizens from enemies both at home and abroad. If none of these problems existed then what would be the use of such a construct? It would be like keeping a can opener when cans have been discontinued. This once again comes down to practicality. I do not think for a second the Utopian world described above will ever exist, but it is imperative according to individualism that only those rights should be taken that are absolutely necessary for people to live around each other and that the individual gives his or her explicit or implicit permission for all violations of his or her rights.
It is finally time to consider objections to Strong Individualism. I could argue that Individualism is self-contradicting. Imagine a serial-killer decided to use individualism. He claims that he has the right to choose whether or not he can stab a poor woman on the street. This woman would obviously not want this and so would claim that she has the right to choose to live. It seems then individualism protects both people and so contradicts itself. This is so only if you agree that all choices must be respected. If it instead reads something like “An action is wrong if and only if it violates another persons choice intentionally...” then this is no longer self contradicting in this way. This is because the serial-killer never possessed the right to kill the woman and so his rights are not diminished if he is disallowed.
One last objection is that individualism does not prevent fraud or consensual child molestation. To this individualism need to be modifies in a small way. Simply make it wrong to intentionally use information, restrict information, or in some way reduce the number of options the individual is aware of so as to undermine their ability to make a choice. So in the case of fraud, it is obviously wrong to misinform someone to trick them into a certain condition. In the case of consensual child molestation, even if the child were told before hand what was going to happen to him or her, it would be difficult to say the least, to prove that the child understood what was being described. Because of this, it seems that under the age of fifteen, it would be almost impossible to prove the individual had the ability to understand what was going on or the consequences of his or her actions.
I will be the first to admit that this is radical. It is insanely radical. I must point out though that most conservative and libertarians hold these truths to be fact. It would be dishonest to not follow them to their conclusions. While I do not expect most of what I have written here to ever be enacted in full, I do believe that we must at least always move in that direction. It is the right thing to do.
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Friday, May 8, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Vindication and Agitation
I am back after a long hiatus. School continues to be disruptive to my hobby of yelling at no one, for no one to hear. Well, the GIVE act has almost vindicated me and the prediction I have made in December of last year. I need to get my congressman on the phone and ask him what in the world he thinks he is doing voting for that, but whatever. That is between me and him.
Since I took off to do a great many things at UNLV, a great big amount of ruckus has been made about bailouts, and even more about a bunch of guys getting their bonuses. Well, of course we could not block those bonuses; I mean, that would have been unconstitutional. Though that does not seem to be the reason for that. This is evidenced by a great many people clamoring for a tax on their bonuses. Gee whiz, that almost sounds unconstitutional. I mean... taxing particular people, and making the tax retroactive. Nah, I am just stupid. Besides, who cares about the constitution? It is our money!!
Let me first make the obvious point that if AIG was not bailed out, this conversation would not exist. But who cares about little facts like that? Let's just go grab our respective pitchforks and go hunting. The simple fact is that this IS our fault. It is not like AIG walked into our homes in the dead of night and took this money. The government, that we voted in, taxed it from us and gave the money to AIG while so many were crying out about some mysterious and vague end-of-the-world scenario. That is not to say no one cried out about these bailouts. Many, like me, were down right angry we were even considering it. Then we allowed them to fulfill their contracts, as was constitutionally required of us. Low and behold, one of the contracts we allowed them to honor included the bonuses.
Well people are outraged that their money is going to these big corporate execs. People are so angry now that they are even happy that we are going to take all their money via tax. Why are we allowing this? Does it not strike anyone as strange, or dare I say wrong to tax these men and women in particular?
Let me put this differently. What if it were you? What if, for whatever reason you want to choose, the government decided to tax you in particular? What if the reason was you do not give enough to charity? Or maybe it is because you earn an 'inordinate amount' of money in comparison to others in your same job? Or maybe it is simply because you happen to be registered for a certain party, or voted for a particular guy?
'No! That is different.' Certainly the circumstances and reasons are different, but can you tell me it wouldn't be done? With this 90% tax that is going through congress right now, we are giving congress precedent. This means that this belief that it could not happen to me goes away. You could argue that the reasons are different, but does that mean whatever reasons given for the unconstitutional tax levied on them are any more or less important then the ones that could be levied on you? You could say that this reason makes it justified, or that it was a punishment for a 'wrong' they have committed. However, could I not make up a reason for doing the exact same thing to anyone else and then claim that this reason is just as justifiable as the ones for this atrocity?
Once this door is opened it cannot be closed simply by crying bloody murder. If we take these bonuses, then there will be no reason why we shouldn't levy a tax on someone for having done something, anything. All we would need would be the proper motivation for it, whatever that motivation happens to be at that time. Maybe sexual preference, skin color, the fact that your hair is parted on the left. All that is required is that someone at some point makes up a good enough reason, and soon the rights of an individual are infringed "for the right reasons".
This is why a diminishing of rights of one, diminishes every person's rights. So you cannot allow this, even IF you think this is a good reason. The rights that protect you protect them as well. By giving the federal government permission to tax anyone in particular, you have given the government permission by assent to do the very same thing to anyone including yourself.
Why should I care though? Some people I know may want everyone to root for this. After all "the libs brought it upon themselves." Once all hell breaks loose these friends of mine will undoubtedly be the ones laughing all the way to the gas chamber. The reason I am against this line of logic is simple; I live here too. Though I warned people and was insulted, and am still insulted. Even though I put up with crap from every 'know-it-all' who listens to NPR; the fact still stands. I live here and I do not think I will be moving for awhile. Laughing at people for making mistakes, even horrible ones will not repair anything. It will get me and everyone else nowhere. We all must simply get together and vote for every conservative we possibly can in two years. When the problem is fixed, that will be the time we can go say I told you so.
Since I took off to do a great many things at UNLV, a great big amount of ruckus has been made about bailouts, and even more about a bunch of guys getting their bonuses. Well, of course we could not block those bonuses; I mean, that would have been unconstitutional. Though that does not seem to be the reason for that. This is evidenced by a great many people clamoring for a tax on their bonuses. Gee whiz, that almost sounds unconstitutional. I mean... taxing particular people, and making the tax retroactive. Nah, I am just stupid. Besides, who cares about the constitution? It is our money!!
Let me first make the obvious point that if AIG was not bailed out, this conversation would not exist. But who cares about little facts like that? Let's just go grab our respective pitchforks and go hunting. The simple fact is that this IS our fault. It is not like AIG walked into our homes in the dead of night and took this money. The government, that we voted in, taxed it from us and gave the money to AIG while so many were crying out about some mysterious and vague end-of-the-world scenario. That is not to say no one cried out about these bailouts. Many, like me, were down right angry we were even considering it. Then we allowed them to fulfill their contracts, as was constitutionally required of us. Low and behold, one of the contracts we allowed them to honor included the bonuses.
Well people are outraged that their money is going to these big corporate execs. People are so angry now that they are even happy that we are going to take all their money via tax. Why are we allowing this? Does it not strike anyone as strange, or dare I say wrong to tax these men and women in particular?
Let me put this differently. What if it were you? What if, for whatever reason you want to choose, the government decided to tax you in particular? What if the reason was you do not give enough to charity? Or maybe it is because you earn an 'inordinate amount' of money in comparison to others in your same job? Or maybe it is simply because you happen to be registered for a certain party, or voted for a particular guy?
'No! That is different.' Certainly the circumstances and reasons are different, but can you tell me it wouldn't be done? With this 90% tax that is going through congress right now, we are giving congress precedent. This means that this belief that it could not happen to me goes away. You could argue that the reasons are different, but does that mean whatever reasons given for the unconstitutional tax levied on them are any more or less important then the ones that could be levied on you? You could say that this reason makes it justified, or that it was a punishment for a 'wrong' they have committed. However, could I not make up a reason for doing the exact same thing to anyone else and then claim that this reason is just as justifiable as the ones for this atrocity?
Once this door is opened it cannot be closed simply by crying bloody murder. If we take these bonuses, then there will be no reason why we shouldn't levy a tax on someone for having done something, anything. All we would need would be the proper motivation for it, whatever that motivation happens to be at that time. Maybe sexual preference, skin color, the fact that your hair is parted on the left. All that is required is that someone at some point makes up a good enough reason, and soon the rights of an individual are infringed "for the right reasons".
This is why a diminishing of rights of one, diminishes every person's rights. So you cannot allow this, even IF you think this is a good reason. The rights that protect you protect them as well. By giving the federal government permission to tax anyone in particular, you have given the government permission by assent to do the very same thing to anyone including yourself.
Why should I care though? Some people I know may want everyone to root for this. After all "the libs brought it upon themselves." Once all hell breaks loose these friends of mine will undoubtedly be the ones laughing all the way to the gas chamber. The reason I am against this line of logic is simple; I live here too. Though I warned people and was insulted, and am still insulted. Even though I put up with crap from every 'know-it-all' who listens to NPR; the fact still stands. I live here and I do not think I will be moving for awhile. Laughing at people for making mistakes, even horrible ones will not repair anything. It will get me and everyone else nowhere. We all must simply get together and vote for every conservative we possibly can in two years. When the problem is fixed, that will be the time we can go say I told you so.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Time for some indentured learnitude.
Christmas is over and I am ready to come back and talk to myself again. During the campaign I, like many other college students, were bombarded with Obama imagery, free concerts and voter turnout rallies. During one of these I happened to walk by an Obama booth. The campaign stumper there told me all the usual, and my favorite line I was fed was 'You know Obama is going to give you 5k for college right?' I am sure this type of bribe works on a lot of people. Of course I brought up all the usual, “Where are you going to get the money?” “We are going to end the Iraq war. Then we will have all the money we need.” “That won't save enough money.” It continued for awhile of course.
It seems to never occur to anyone in college that money does not grow on trees. I always found that strange since presumably they all work for a living. I am a broke college student. I know people are having a hard time keeping up with bills. Still many college students are now rejoicing in their handouts. After the election I manged to sit down and think over this fact. When I mulled over it for a bit, I went temporarily insane because of what I figured out.
First of all this money must come from somewhere so therefor taxes go up, therefor prices go up and job losses go up. None of this is helpful obviously but this is also well covered by many before me. Let us assume for a second that the Obama stumper was right and let us say that the Iraq war would cover all of this. The simple fact is that colleges are businesses. It may seem to many libs to be somehow evil but these schools are not teaching law and economics for their health, they do it for a profit. Every college prices the tuition to restrict and attract certain groups of people. Higher prices tend to hit the high capita families, other colleges target middle classes and still others target upper lower classes. What do you think will happen if you throw 4k into the mix? If colleges really were these ultra accepting institutions that wanted to get more lower income families into college, then they could just lower the tuition cost 4k. The simple fact is that they are priced where they believe they can get the most money. Unfortunately what will almost certainly happen is that tuition will actually increase 4k across the board.
This gets better. To get these 4k dollar government handouts, an individual needs to work for 100 hours of community service. So tuition goes up 4k a year meaning people who are just making the cut, like me, are no longer able to afford college. So now I am expected to go to college full-time, work full-time, study for about three hours (I am lazy) a week and perform 100 hours of community service. I find it strange that conservatives are always being compared to Hitler and called racists and made out to be somehow evil, yet with all this evil scheming going on we still have not reinstituted indentured servitude. Man, if I could only remember what amendment to the constitution banned that.
This was the part that made me go nutso for a week. What is wrong with people? This in reality is worse then indentured servitude because most indentured servants were indentured because they had to pay off a debt owed for coming to the new world, in this case I would effectively lose over seventy credits of hard work and money spent. It seems you do not need whips to enslave a college student.
I am sure it will be only a short while before someone tries to pass this off as a 'free market solution'. Why is it liberals believe that a 'free market' always involves massive government interventionism? The last I checked, the free market was supposed to be a bastion for individualism. It seems that now the free market is a gigantic charity auction with more suits then Italy has made in the last half century.
Of course this would be bad on its own but wait theres more! I know, this is one sick game show. The Obama Biden team have come up with yet another way to make this worse. The tax-credit (handout for those of you who have not been paying attention to this scheme) is fully-refundable to any college student. Call me crazy but I think you do not need to be a college student to figure out that if you sign up for one class at a community college then you will rake in a lot of dough. This problem is a bit more iffy as it is possible that Obama may get some restriction on this to reign in government abuse. Wait... never mind; I forgot where we were.
Normally this next paragraph would be the part where I lament that our constitution is no longer being followed but I am sure that train has gone and passed and blew up somewhere in the Gobi desert. No the entire collection of college students will take one in the rear end coming this next fall. If people would just read or maybe just think a little then all our problems could be solved. As long as people go looking for a handout from big brother though this is not going to happen.
It seems to never occur to anyone in college that money does not grow on trees. I always found that strange since presumably they all work for a living. I am a broke college student. I know people are having a hard time keeping up with bills. Still many college students are now rejoicing in their handouts. After the election I manged to sit down and think over this fact. When I mulled over it for a bit, I went temporarily insane because of what I figured out.
First of all this money must come from somewhere so therefor taxes go up, therefor prices go up and job losses go up. None of this is helpful obviously but this is also well covered by many before me. Let us assume for a second that the Obama stumper was right and let us say that the Iraq war would cover all of this. The simple fact is that colleges are businesses. It may seem to many libs to be somehow evil but these schools are not teaching law and economics for their health, they do it for a profit. Every college prices the tuition to restrict and attract certain groups of people. Higher prices tend to hit the high capita families, other colleges target middle classes and still others target upper lower classes. What do you think will happen if you throw 4k into the mix? If colleges really were these ultra accepting institutions that wanted to get more lower income families into college, then they could just lower the tuition cost 4k. The simple fact is that they are priced where they believe they can get the most money. Unfortunately what will almost certainly happen is that tuition will actually increase 4k across the board.
This gets better. To get these 4k dollar government handouts, an individual needs to work for 100 hours of community service. So tuition goes up 4k a year meaning people who are just making the cut, like me, are no longer able to afford college. So now I am expected to go to college full-time, work full-time, study for about three hours (I am lazy) a week and perform 100 hours of community service. I find it strange that conservatives are always being compared to Hitler and called racists and made out to be somehow evil, yet with all this evil scheming going on we still have not reinstituted indentured servitude. Man, if I could only remember what amendment to the constitution banned that.
This was the part that made me go nutso for a week. What is wrong with people? This in reality is worse then indentured servitude because most indentured servants were indentured because they had to pay off a debt owed for coming to the new world, in this case I would effectively lose over seventy credits of hard work and money spent. It seems you do not need whips to enslave a college student.
I am sure it will be only a short while before someone tries to pass this off as a 'free market solution'. Why is it liberals believe that a 'free market' always involves massive government interventionism? The last I checked, the free market was supposed to be a bastion for individualism. It seems that now the free market is a gigantic charity auction with more suits then Italy has made in the last half century.
Of course this would be bad on its own but wait theres more! I know, this is one sick game show. The Obama Biden team have come up with yet another way to make this worse. The tax-credit (handout for those of you who have not been paying attention to this scheme) is fully-refundable to any college student. Call me crazy but I think you do not need to be a college student to figure out that if you sign up for one class at a community college then you will rake in a lot of dough. This problem is a bit more iffy as it is possible that Obama may get some restriction on this to reign in government abuse. Wait... never mind; I forgot where we were.
Normally this next paragraph would be the part where I lament that our constitution is no longer being followed but I am sure that train has gone and passed and blew up somewhere in the Gobi desert. No the entire collection of college students will take one in the rear end coming this next fall. If people would just read or maybe just think a little then all our problems could be solved. As long as people go looking for a handout from big brother though this is not going to happen.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
You wanted it and now you have it.
Well there you have it; Obama won. If you’re a lib I am sure your happy, which if your like me, is just plain strange when you think about it. It is like watching a guy with schizophrenia cut off his arm to stop it from hurting him. If you are a lib I am sure your thinking “Oh just another republican ticked off he lost. GET OVER IT. (loser)” My favorite gloating comment came from a guy yesterday night who told me “Get over it and work with us.” No doubt he is all for unity. I, on the other hand, care only about ideology, conservative ideology that is (with some libertarianism thrown in to boot). This means that if Barrack keeps his promises then I could never “work with him”. Sorry, it does not work that way. If I disagree I will straight up tell you. “Working with him” would require going against everything I believe in.
This post isn’t about me being angry. As the title suggests, this is about what you want. You voted for Barrack and now he will be our president on January 20. I will merely be informative about what you have done to yourself. I am sure you won’t believe any of this but keep reading and remember. I told you this will happen. I will state a position you voted for and then show you precisely how you will get it. Enjoy.
“I voted for him because he will finally stop working for the rich and help out the middle class/working poor.”
Certainly he will tax the rich, and every conservative will howl at the idea. Not because we ourselves our rich (technically with my current income I would fall under Obama’s money giveaway), but because it simply is wrong, period. That is right, even if it screws me I don’t believe in taxes above and beyond what it takes to run the country (note: I am only including constitutional duties, not money givaways).
The problem is that he wants to kill the Bush tax cuts which, when implemented, decreased taxes for everyone with taxable income above 6k dollars. The cuts in the 2001 cuts were 3% for anyone in the 28% tax bracket and above and a tax cut of 4.6% on the highest bracket. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 numbers for individuals, brackets are higher for all other statuses. You can also read the actual document posted by the IRS, though if you have a life (lucky) then you will want to skip it. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01taxsh.pdf. That is a lot more in depth. Enjoy.)
“The bush tax cuts helped the middle class?” Yes, we have been telling you this for five years. What? You think we are going to lie? Why wouldn’t you make the same assumption about the other side? I don’t have a history of lying to others and most conservatives I know don’t either. To late though so this is what you get if this was your mistake.
Now taxes will increase on everyone. Certainly this will affect the ‘rich’ more but never-the-less it will hit everyone. He is a problem though. The rich can take a hit. If I had 200k and lost ten percent then, well that sucks. If you an the other hand have 35k and lose ten percent then that is the difference between buying a new TV and taking your child out of that jumpstart program for elementary. So say goodbye to your child’s college aspirations, hello McDonalds. It gets worse of course.
The ‘rich’ will want their 10% back. Since they tend to be the class that runs businesses then they will increase prices. For those of you who don’t read economics, that means inflation. Further, they cannot just raise prices forever to combat high costs. No one will by a three dollar banana. So they must reduce costs. If Obama didn’t already say he was going to mandate healthcare insurance then that would probably go. A pay cut would make sense but won’t happen because that too is locked out for any minimum wage job. So if your Richie rich then you will fire people. This means job losses.
“That can’t be true, Obama said he would create jobs.” The fact that you believe that is why people like me are shaking our heads in shame. Taxes NEVER create jobs. “But Obama said he will give tax breaks to those corporations that provide jobs.” Even if he does that it will not be sufficient to counter Obama’s progressive tax that is more then 50%. The tax break would have to be a fifty percent cut on Obama’s own proposed tax increase. This means that even if we were all lying about the Bush tax cuts then the middle class would not do well under Obama. Further people who pay no net taxes (i.e. receive rebates equal to their taxed income) will receive additional checks. Good news if you make less then 25k per year (till the inflation gets them anyway), but everyone else is stuck will the check. Have you figured it out yet?
“I voted for Barrack Obama because the republicans screwed up the economy.”
This is an example of a half-truth. Yes, Bush allowed several measures that increased the national debt to pass. This irritates me as well, but this has little to do with the economy. Why bring it up then? Because libs often do, usually using this as a reason against the Iraq war (front). Although this increase in debt does exist remember, article I section VII states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”. So this includes budgets. If you think this doesn’t clear the republicans then remember this. During the entire six years of republican congresses the debt increased 2,947,308,345,232.84 but under the last two years of democratic congress the debt has increased 1,891,061,112,953.10. This equates to 490 billion per year for the republicans and 945 billion per year for the democrats. That is nearly double. Even if the Iraq war had never happened the deficit per year would be only 100 billion less. (source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway)
This really does not matter though since this has little to do with the economy until the printing presses start. However the Community Reinvestment Act is a big cause of our problems. It is the bill that created Fannie and Freddy, and during the Clinton administration they both were told to give out sub-prime loans en mass. Loans to people who cannot pay? Seems to me to be a bad idea but hey, who am I to judge Clinton’s economic ideas? This was forseen for years and ignored by the democratic congress. So now capital is running dry. Combine this with the taxes Obama will increase and we are screwed. (see a pattern?)
“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is pro choice/gay rights/environment etc…”
At least in this case you are voting for an ideology. In the case of abortion I think it is abominable and gay rights (i.e. marrage) I think the solution is a poor one. In fact I have already provided arguments against these so read those then come back.
“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is black and we need a black president.”
The argument for this is always retarded. Either we need to make up for past wrongs or we need to make history. The first one is easy to defeat because if that one is true then we should also elect Kim Jung Il for putting him through all the trouble we put him through with our sanctions. It would also make sense to elect an Islamic, an Indian, an Irishman, a Russian immigrant… see where this goes? Even though we have enslaved an entire people, that is not a sufficient reason to have one as president.
The history making argument goes awry as well. If this is your argument then understand it goes both ways. If Obama becomes a great president (a laughable idea), then he will go down in history books as a great man. You could continue this and say things like “our past wrongs would be righted” (see last paragraph) “Our world and our country will be more diverse” or any other ideas. The ones you choose don’t really matter. If however he is a bad president then he will be infamous. Even if he is a sort of bad president the world will remember him as a disappointment. This taken to its conclusion suggests that all we have done if force every black guy after him to live under his shadow. If he is a good president then hurray, but if he is even a little bad then it will be harder for every successor to get out. So by this logic I would say you only wanted to make it harder on them all. That is a bad idea.
The major point I am trying to raise on the last reason is that you need to pick someone based on their ideology not some superficial trait. It would be as if I picked Paris Hilton. Granted that isn’t entirely as bad a Barrack, after all, she does have a better energy plan the Obama.
Oh well. In two years we can take back congress and in the meantime filibustering is still a slight possibility. Barrack is safe though I have no doubt. Now that the election is over I think I will focus on theory a lot. The big challenge for conservatives will be to educate their friends and family. This isn’t just a war of people, it is a war of ideas, and I think in the grand scheme of things our ideas are better.
This post isn’t about me being angry. As the title suggests, this is about what you want. You voted for Barrack and now he will be our president on January 20. I will merely be informative about what you have done to yourself. I am sure you won’t believe any of this but keep reading and remember. I told you this will happen. I will state a position you voted for and then show you precisely how you will get it. Enjoy.
“I voted for him because he will finally stop working for the rich and help out the middle class/working poor.”
Certainly he will tax the rich, and every conservative will howl at the idea. Not because we ourselves our rich (technically with my current income I would fall under Obama’s money giveaway), but because it simply is wrong, period. That is right, even if it screws me I don’t believe in taxes above and beyond what it takes to run the country (note: I am only including constitutional duties, not money givaways).
The problem is that he wants to kill the Bush tax cuts which, when implemented, decreased taxes for everyone with taxable income above 6k dollars. The cuts in the 2001 cuts were 3% for anyone in the 28% tax bracket and above and a tax cut of 4.6% on the highest bracket. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 numbers for individuals, brackets are higher for all other statuses. You can also read the actual document posted by the IRS, though if you have a life (lucky) then you will want to skip it. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01taxsh.pdf. That is a lot more in depth. Enjoy.)
“The bush tax cuts helped the middle class?” Yes, we have been telling you this for five years. What? You think we are going to lie? Why wouldn’t you make the same assumption about the other side? I don’t have a history of lying to others and most conservatives I know don’t either. To late though so this is what you get if this was your mistake.
Now taxes will increase on everyone. Certainly this will affect the ‘rich’ more but never-the-less it will hit everyone. He is a problem though. The rich can take a hit. If I had 200k and lost ten percent then, well that sucks. If you an the other hand have 35k and lose ten percent then that is the difference between buying a new TV and taking your child out of that jumpstart program for elementary. So say goodbye to your child’s college aspirations, hello McDonalds. It gets worse of course.
The ‘rich’ will want their 10% back. Since they tend to be the class that runs businesses then they will increase prices. For those of you who don’t read economics, that means inflation. Further, they cannot just raise prices forever to combat high costs. No one will by a three dollar banana. So they must reduce costs. If Obama didn’t already say he was going to mandate healthcare insurance then that would probably go. A pay cut would make sense but won’t happen because that too is locked out for any minimum wage job. So if your Richie rich then you will fire people. This means job losses.
“That can’t be true, Obama said he would create jobs.” The fact that you believe that is why people like me are shaking our heads in shame. Taxes NEVER create jobs. “But Obama said he will give tax breaks to those corporations that provide jobs.” Even if he does that it will not be sufficient to counter Obama’s progressive tax that is more then 50%. The tax break would have to be a fifty percent cut on Obama’s own proposed tax increase. This means that even if we were all lying about the Bush tax cuts then the middle class would not do well under Obama. Further people who pay no net taxes (i.e. receive rebates equal to their taxed income) will receive additional checks. Good news if you make less then 25k per year (till the inflation gets them anyway), but everyone else is stuck will the check. Have you figured it out yet?
“I voted for Barrack Obama because the republicans screwed up the economy.”
This is an example of a half-truth. Yes, Bush allowed several measures that increased the national debt to pass. This irritates me as well, but this has little to do with the economy. Why bring it up then? Because libs often do, usually using this as a reason against the Iraq war (front). Although this increase in debt does exist remember, article I section VII states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”. So this includes budgets. If you think this doesn’t clear the republicans then remember this. During the entire six years of republican congresses the debt increased 2,947,308,345,232.84 but under the last two years of democratic congress the debt has increased 1,891,061,112,953.10. This equates to 490 billion per year for the republicans and 945 billion per year for the democrats. That is nearly double. Even if the Iraq war had never happened the deficit per year would be only 100 billion less. (source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway)
This really does not matter though since this has little to do with the economy until the printing presses start. However the Community Reinvestment Act is a big cause of our problems. It is the bill that created Fannie and Freddy, and during the Clinton administration they both were told to give out sub-prime loans en mass. Loans to people who cannot pay? Seems to me to be a bad idea but hey, who am I to judge Clinton’s economic ideas? This was forseen for years and ignored by the democratic congress. So now capital is running dry. Combine this with the taxes Obama will increase and we are screwed. (see a pattern?)
“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is pro choice/gay rights/environment etc…”
At least in this case you are voting for an ideology. In the case of abortion I think it is abominable and gay rights (i.e. marrage) I think the solution is a poor one. In fact I have already provided arguments against these so read those then come back.
“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is black and we need a black president.”
The argument for this is always retarded. Either we need to make up for past wrongs or we need to make history. The first one is easy to defeat because if that one is true then we should also elect Kim Jung Il for putting him through all the trouble we put him through with our sanctions. It would also make sense to elect an Islamic, an Indian, an Irishman, a Russian immigrant… see where this goes? Even though we have enslaved an entire people, that is not a sufficient reason to have one as president.
The history making argument goes awry as well. If this is your argument then understand it goes both ways. If Obama becomes a great president (a laughable idea), then he will go down in history books as a great man. You could continue this and say things like “our past wrongs would be righted” (see last paragraph) “Our world and our country will be more diverse” or any other ideas. The ones you choose don’t really matter. If however he is a bad president then he will be infamous. Even if he is a sort of bad president the world will remember him as a disappointment. This taken to its conclusion suggests that all we have done if force every black guy after him to live under his shadow. If he is a good president then hurray, but if he is even a little bad then it will be harder for every successor to get out. So by this logic I would say you only wanted to make it harder on them all. That is a bad idea.
The major point I am trying to raise on the last reason is that you need to pick someone based on their ideology not some superficial trait. It would be as if I picked Paris Hilton. Granted that isn’t entirely as bad a Barrack, after all, she does have a better energy plan the Obama.
Oh well. In two years we can take back congress and in the meantime filibustering is still a slight possibility. Barrack is safe though I have no doubt. Now that the election is over I think I will focus on theory a lot. The big challenge for conservatives will be to educate their friends and family. This isn’t just a war of people, it is a war of ideas, and I think in the grand scheme of things our ideas are better.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Victory is ours!!! sort of...
The supreme court rule against the D.C. gun ban this week. That's the good news. The bad news is that it was only by a 5 to 4 vote. Thanks to that swing vote of Kennedy's we have won this battle. I find it somewhat terrifying that four of the Supreme court justices have not read the Constitution of the United States. You know, the one they are supposed to interpret. This will undoubtedly change however with the new presidency. If Obama is elected and the congress stays heavily liberal then they together will appoint more radical judges. Great!!! More Ginsburgs. This is rather irritating to a NRA member like myself.
Some comments about this come from various places. Despite how much he infuriates me at least I agree with McCain here Today's ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans (courtesy of NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91934910&ft=1&f=1001) Obama also gave a sort of praise Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe. (also NPR)
I think this is interesting as he stated that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." No Obama, it is what isn't constitutional in D.C. isn't constitutional anywhere in the U.S. period.
What was the dissenting opinions? Well Stevens tried to make the point that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. (wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._D.C.) Would you have me assume that if I had read to sentences that read "In order to protect Jill's right to eats Ice cream, Jake's right to have brass knuckles must not be infringed." to mean that Jill should get the brass knuckles or that Jake can only possess them if Jill's right to eat ice cream is in danger? The preamble just gives a reason why the law exists (aside from protecting from a tyrannical gov't). Many laws have that kind of crap right at the top. Read the beginning of the constitution or the declaration. Read the beginning of the (thankfully) failed law called the climate security act of 2007.
Of course Breyer brought up how many people die because of guns. I am glad to say fear mongering hasn't gone out of style. Gun bans don't work. This has been proven numerous times. Do you think it is a coincidence that D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S.? Never mind, this point has been driven hard enough already and the only ones who believe this drivel anymore are the zealots.
Thankfully there are somethings we can do. If we can bring back the GOP as the conservative party and take back the congress from the radical left wing MoveOn mesmerized dems then we can impeach every on of those justices. That's right, Impeach. They can be impeached too. (read Article II last section if you don't believe me.) If we don't band together soon then we may not live in a free world for long.
Some comments about this come from various places. Despite how much he infuriates me at least I agree with McCain here Today's ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans (courtesy of NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91934910&ft=1&f=1001) Obama also gave a sort of praise Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe. (also NPR)
I think this is interesting as he stated that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." No Obama, it is what isn't constitutional in D.C. isn't constitutional anywhere in the U.S. period.
What was the dissenting opinions? Well Stevens tried to make the point that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. (wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._D.C.) Would you have me assume that if I had read to sentences that read "In order to protect Jill's right to eats Ice cream, Jake's right to have brass knuckles must not be infringed." to mean that Jill should get the brass knuckles or that Jake can only possess them if Jill's right to eat ice cream is in danger? The preamble just gives a reason why the law exists (aside from protecting from a tyrannical gov't). Many laws have that kind of crap right at the top. Read the beginning of the constitution or the declaration. Read the beginning of the (thankfully) failed law called the climate security act of 2007.
Of course Breyer brought up how many people die because of guns. I am glad to say fear mongering hasn't gone out of style. Gun bans don't work. This has been proven numerous times. Do you think it is a coincidence that D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S.? Never mind, this point has been driven hard enough already and the only ones who believe this drivel anymore are the zealots.
Thankfully there are somethings we can do. If we can bring back the GOP as the conservative party and take back the congress from the radical left wing MoveOn mesmerized dems then we can impeach every on of those justices. That's right, Impeach. They can be impeached too. (read Article II last section if you don't believe me.) If we don't band together soon then we may not live in a free world for long.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Argueing your point
Ever argue with a liberal? If your lucky, you will get a list of talking points. In essence they spit out rehearsed lines given to them by their teachers, friends, relatives, liberal pundits and even candidates for office. Go ahead, stop reading and try it. If your like me you will find it somewhat frustrating to talk to someone as programmed as many of them are. A bigger problem I see is when conservatives imitate liberals by spouting talking points. Even though everyone does this, even I do this, it disturbs me that some of these budding conservatives don't even know why they believe what they believe.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)