It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The liberal machine runs on emotion. But what is the solution?

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Fuzzy math. Please watch that documentary or cite something when you post numbers.

Where do you suppose "liberals" come up with the 400ppm CO2 count. We just recently crossed the 400ppm mark. Is that just some liberal fuzzy number liberals come up with to scare people?


edit on 13-6-2014 by jrod because: no citation necessary




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: neo96

Fuzzy math. Please watch that documentary or cite something when you post numbers.

Where do you suppose "liberals" come up with the 400ppm CO2 count. We just recently crossed the 400ppm mark. Is that just some liberal fuzzy number liberals come up with to scare people?



Thanks for derailing the thread. Can I ask if you have a suggestion for how to shield oneself from a political cheap shot like the one described in the initial post?

Forget whether the person is liberal or conservative. Take partisanship out of the equation for just a minute just for the sake of allowing yourself to look at the core issue. Just assume there is a person who is making this kind of an argument and you need to either shield yourself from it or counter it. In essence, you need to lower the octane of your opponent's fuel. How do you do it?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I do believe the intent of your thread was to polarize. Just a guess with the way you throw the word liberal around.

You never answered my simple question, how do you define a liberal?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Loveaduck
Now, if we could get these two to compromise as well as they do in our heads.


When I hear "compromise" a red flag always goes up. It usually means I agree to give up my position and they agree to stop bothering me about it.


Is that what happens in your head, when the left and right side are vying for prominence?
It usually means whichever side is best suited for the task, will take over and do it. If it's math, for example the left side of your brain is going to be working harder than the right. In other instances it will be reversed. It isn't you giving up anything as much as it is taking turns with the decision making. I decide this, you decide that, and there is general agreement over all, so really what you are haggling on is the fine points. It's your brain. It makes the very different left and right sides work because anything else is not even an option.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

edit on 13-6-2014 by Loveaduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   
As humans, positive emotions are some of our most beautiful characteristics, while negative emotions are some of our most ugly attributes.

It's tough to remove emotion from political and social issues, but it is needed if we want what's best for mankind, as opposed to what's "right".



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Battleline

What do you think illegal alien amnesty (aka, immigration "reform") is about?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Emotion is the grandfather of action.

or

Feelings dictate behavior.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Loveaduck

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Loveaduck
Now, if we could get these two to compromise as well as they do in our heads.


When I hear "compromise" a red flag always goes up. It usually means I agree to give up my position and they agree to stop bothering me about it.


Is that what happens in your head, when the left and right side are vying for prominence?
It usually means whichever side is best suited for the task, will take over and do it. If it's math, for example the left side of your brain is going to be working harder than the right. In other instances it will be reversed. It isn't you giving up anything as much as it is taking turns with the decision making. I decide this, you decide that, and there is general agreement over all, so really what you are haggling on is the fine points. It's your brain. It makes the very different left and right sides work because anything else is not even an option.


Actually, compromise should mean that both sides agree to give up some of what they want to get some of what they want and no one should be completely happy with the end result. There is no "who's best about it" because both sides usually each think their way is best.

Usually, compromises is Washington do end this way. However, one side immediately gets something and what the other side wants is usually delayed by enough years that it's up to future Congresses to either decide to uphold those promises or not which they are not legally bound to do. So basically, one side gets some of what they want and the other side winds up with empty promises to get some of what they want meaning they get screwed but they can go home to their voters and tell them otherwise.

It's part of the game the DC power brokers play and why the establishment hacks need to go.
edit on 14-6-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
As humans, positive emotions are some of our most beautiful characteristics, while negative emotions are some of our most ugly attributes.

It's tough to remove emotion from political and social issues, but it is needed if we want what's best for mankind, as opposed to what's "right".


You do need some emotion, yes, but there is a fine line between letting emotion temper your responses and letting emotion rule them.

It's like they say in Men in Black "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Look at how many people get caught up in emotion and do things they otherwise would never, ever do. We call them crimes of passion for a reason. Your emotions can lead you to do stupid things and basing the rule of a nation on emotion is a very, very bad idea.

There comes a point where you have to be able to separate your emotional responses from your logical ones. What's best for the nation as a whole isn't always what your heart tells you although you should never shut your heart out entirely.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

No, tothetenth is right. I'm a centrist leaning libertarian (if I have to pick). I also have spent a great many years studying precisely this issue. It's called public relations, i.e., the modern propaganda machine. Both mainstream parties are actively engaged in it. Both mainstream parties are basically the same behind the scenes. These petty social issues are the glue that holds the illusion together. In my current opinion is tentatively that the liberals are engineering cultural change while "conservative" outlets and personalities are manufacturing dissent. Think about it... Fox News makes real conservatives look crazy to most liberals and swing voters. Fox News is also owned by the News Corp. The News Corp puts out mostly liberal programming, e.g., family guy. Hmmm...



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher

The OP has yet to define what he calls liberal.

I do believe this was just another polarization thread. If I did not know better, I would say there is an agenda from both sides hell-bent on polarizing the US.




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: JohnFisher

The OP has yet to define what he calls liberal.


I don't think people need to waste their time defining what needs no definition. I believe most people recognize a liberal when they see one. Liberals certainly recognize one another (A fact demonstrated quite well by the fact that they know instantly when you aren't one of them).


I do believe this was just another polarization thread. If I did not know better, I would say there is an agenda from both sides hell-bent on polarizing the US.


I'll ask again (not that it will do any good). Go back to the original post I made in this thread and read the very last sentence.

Yes. I believe polarity in any society is normal. I don't think we should try to eliminate differences of opinion. When someone is wrong, there needs to be someone saying so. And if we need to have an argument over it, so be it. Human beings are not and will not ever be perfect. We will always need to ask who is right and who is wrong. It will always be necessary to have arguments because the correct answer to any question does not just come out of the sky.

In general, the majority will dictate what is right and what is wrong. They don't have to be right. They only have to believe they're right.

Here is an example of what is going to happen if things keep going the way they are going today. This is part of the agenda that is being forced on us



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
80% of the movies put out by Hollywood today are either "right" or "left" propaganda meant to appeal to the emotions.

To appeal to the left, show Matt Damon fight "evil American oil companies" (I forget the movies name but its ironic that it was financed by arabs) or have Michael Douglas appear as an "evil wall street capitalist". Ad a brutally abused black disabled transgender female into the mix and you got your emotional fuel.

To appeal to the right, show a sweaty Bruce Willis fight "evil terrorists" or have Sandra Bullock take in an obese black kid and "civilize" him (forget the name of that movie, but the subtle racism inherent in it was missed by the crowds). For good measure add a few bible quotes and a few more guns. And there MUST be a happy end in which the U.S. is victorious.

Its hard to watch hollywood movies anymore because its so easy to see "where they are coming from" with their stereotypical, comic-like depiction of "the other side".



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Way to jump around the question.



...most people recognize a liberal when they see one.......


Again, what is liberal to you, in your words. When one throws a word around in such a negative it helps me the other reader to understand what you mean when you write liberal.

I have a free mind, a free will, and I am a free thinker. No one will push an agenda on me personally, others will fall hook, line, and sinker for anything shiny. I thank God I am not one of them.


edit on 14-6-2014 by jrod because: fixit



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I agree except that I believe "both sides" are ultimately one side.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher

To clarify, I agree that "both sides" are trying to pit the United States against itself. In terms of the OP's lack of definition for liberal... He's right. Liberals are typically easy to identify. I think OP is operating on the premise that we're all educated enough to know the difference. In political science, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are defined (not the same for judges). The defining characteristic is based around economic ideology, but they also include a good list of other shared values among liberals/conservatives. I posted the chart in a different thread. I might post it here if I think about it next time I'm around the computer (instead of phone).



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not really. Right now the US is trending towards further polarization.



I linked this graphic on a previous post. It is a bit tougher to ignore now.

edit on 14-6-2014 by jrod because: 1



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnFisher The defining characteristic is based around economic ideology, but they also include a good list of other shared values among liberals/conservatives. I posted the chart in a different thread. I might post it here if I think about it next time I'm around the computer (instead of phone).


Please do if you can.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
By the way, the purpose of this thread was not to say the liberals are the only people who use this tactic. Rather, that (in general) they are the best at it and when they succeed, the results are devastating to anyone who disagrees with the liberal philosophy. This goes for conservatives or libertarians or anyone else who disagrees with the big government philosophy.

The question was just a general one. How do you counter a political strategy that makes the audience cry and then sells them the last thing they should really want while they're too emotional to think?

The problem with the liberals is that they seem to just get lucky and get all the really good victims for their sob stories. And they are exceptionally good at knowing how to present their stories as unbiased so they cross political lines effortlessly. This is something conservatives and libertarians don't do well at all.



The simple answer is to just sit back and enjoy the ride...
Soon, very soon the left will have their way and they will start a world war that will kill the fools in the cities.
Then we start all over again growing a fresh new crop of fools.
If you what to know what the future holds for us, just read your history!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join