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.

 

Someone did a profile of liberals and they scored a zero

page: 10
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
When it comes time to make a decision, the smart thing to do is gather all the facts and look at the evidence in order to get a better idea of the consequences of that decision or gain more insight into the decision. This is why Democrats will appear to Republicans like they aren't consistent. Republicans like the guy in the o.P. at least, like being consistent over being correct.

Think of making a decision on the battlefield, you aren't always going to retreat every time. The decision to retreat is based on the situation at hand - not dogma.
edit on 28amSat, 28 Jan 2017 02:52:24 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
When it comes time to make a decision, the smart thing to do is gather all the facts and look at the evidence in order to get a better idea of the consequences of that decision or gain more insight into the decision. This is why Democrats will appear to Republicans like they aren't consistent. Republicans like the guy in the o.P. at least, like being consistent over being correct.

Think of making a decision on the battlefield, you aren't always going to retreat every time. The decision to retreat is based on the situation at hand - not dogma.


I think the Republicans adequately understood the battlefield in the election and turned Democrat election hopes into dust.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
When it comes time to make a decision, the smart thing to do is gather all the facts and look at the evidence in order to get a better idea of the consequences of that decision or gain more insight into the decision. This is why Democrats will appear to Republicans like they aren't consistent. Republicans like the guy in the o.P. at least, like being consistent over being correct.

Think of making a decision on the battlefield, you aren't always going to retreat every time. The decision to retreat is based on the situation at hand - not dogma.


Is this suggesting that sometimes the Iran Sex Slave Trade is a good thing, and sometimes the Iran Sex Slave Trade is a bad thing, it depends on if the situation is a battlefield?

When did dogma become a bad word?

Because the track record since the 60's shows that invariably liberals will degrade this righteous male and we still haven't been able to end the Iranian Sex Slave Trade, and we never will as long as liberals can keep us on the defensive, thus becoming the protectors of the Iranian Sex Slave Trade themselves.

Though they can't see it.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: darkbake
When it comes time to make a decision, the smart thing to do is gather all the facts and look at the evidence in order to get a better idea of the consequences of that decision or gain more insight into the decision. This is why Democrats will appear to Republicans like they aren't consistent. Republicans like the guy in the o.P. at least, like being consistent over being correct.

Think of making a decision on the battlefield, you aren't always going to retreat every time. The decision to retreat is based on the situation at hand - not dogma.


Is this suggesting that sometimes the Iran Sex Slave Trade is a good thing, and sometimes the Iran Sex Slave Trade is a bad thing, it depends on if the situation is a battlefield?

When did dogma become a bad word?

Because the track record since the 60's shows that invariably liberals will degrade this righteous male and we still haven't been able to end the Iranian Sex Slave Trade, and we never will as long as liberals can keep us on the defensive, thus becoming the protectors of the Iranian Sex Slave Trade themselves.

Though they can't see it.




You do realize that you are taking a perfectly reasonable statement that Darkbake made about making flexible decisions based on new information, and twisting it into a black/white values question? The two are not even remotely the same thing.

The first, in Darkbake's post, is regarding decisions made based on what is known at the time regarding a situation. When what is known changes, good leadership must not stick to the old facts, but remain flexible and move with the current information to better advantage. Just like we wouldn't want to use horse calvary in an industrialized war.

For example, in playing chess, you shouldn't have just one strategy in your pocket. You make your move and watch. If the next few moves work the way you want them to, great! If not, if the other side blocks your move or changes the game on you entirely, you reassess and call up a different strategy that you hope will both counter them and work to your advantage to win.

Reasonable, yes? It would be unreasonable to mistake these decisions with VALUE judgements. That's a whole different thing.

It would be unreasonable, in chess, to declare one strategy only, one way to "win" regardless of any other incoming information (i.e. mistaking it for a "right way" VALUE judgement vs a strategy) and to not shift strategy when needed.

Value judgements CAN be black and white for people, of course (even liberals! *gasp*). The sex trade example is one of those things that, unless you are one of the animals profiting from this that thinks it's totally okay to do, MOST people and certainly most liberals concerned with women's rights, would say that is a black and white "WRONG."

Forcing women to do things with their bodies that they do not want to do in a way that violates her right of self-determination, especially when it involves sex in any way, is a no-no for most liberals most of the time.

See, that's a value judgement. So genital mutilation is a no-no. Forced abortions are a no-no. Forced sex in any form is a violation and a no-no. Etc. You get the picture.

Now back to strategy and policy.

So in the education system, for example, strategies are tried out to see what works best to educate our nation's children. When the data comes back and shows that education scores have dropped or increased, liberals make decisions based on that information and either change direction or double down. We do not say "there is one right way." We do what is done in medicine, which is to seek out "best practices." Once we discover what works and what doesn't, making drastic changes to what works doesn't make sense. So when we want to make big changes, we test them out scientifically in a small area - a community that is willing to do this in a major city, or in a rural area, or both. Data is collected, and decisions are made based on the data.

Science oriented people are in general less black and white about policy, less dogmatic, because they see public policy as more of a social experiment designed to get a desired result. If the result happens, great! If it doesn't, not so great. Methodology must be examined, data analyzed and a new policy drawn up from the ashes, unless it is shown that the original idea was not properly implemented and deserves another chance. See?

Darkbake is arguing a point about flexible strategy in policymaking, and you are arguing basic values of right and wrong. You are discussing two wholly different topics.

Values inform policy but they are themselves not policy. Values in a culture can and do change over time. That is also inevitable. History bears this out. Differences in values, and cultural shifts in values are threatening to people who hold that the "old ways" are the "right ways." New pockets of cultural influence (i.e. immigrants bringing their own religions and black and white values that may be different than yours, may seem backwards or libertine) can also seem threatening from a values perspective (or a "righteous" perspective...).

Now, speaking of "righteous," what the heck was the whole "righteous man" argument about?

Who is the "righteous man?" By what standard is he "righteous?"

Could it be that this "righteous man" is looking at a cultural shift and feeling his world shattered by people who don't do things "the right way" like he's used to?

Could it be that he is threatened by a cultural shift and willing to drag the culture back to where he is comfortable because he feels "righteous" about it?

Could it be that the people who have moved with the cultural shift see that as "going backwards" and being against their "righteous" set of culturally shifted values??

"Righteous" is a dangerous word. Wars start over the concept of "righteous." It implies "infallible" to many people. "My way or the highway." It implies Judgement. It implies black and white, inflexible thinking.

Food for thought.






posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Tearman

Then Donald comes along and lefty loses it...cause if the Don wins lefty has no place in the world.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Spend 35 minutes watching a man who doesn't like liberals define the word liberal?


Yeah I'll pass. I know what a liberal is.


He is someone who grew up as a liberal New York Jew


Give the man a chance.

It wont hurt.

You may actually enjoy it, and laugh along with him.


Mike Grouchy


"Liberal New York Jew"? Anti-semite much? I know you all are reveling in your miraculous transition from "nauseatingly ignorant" to "existential threat to humanity", but maybe just give it a rest for five minutes.
edit on 28-1-2017 by JohnnyElohim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Tearman

Then Donald comes along and lefty loses it...cause if the Don wins lefty has no place in the world.


If there is one fortunate byproduct of this horrifying attempt to restore fascism, it must be that you and all your ilk are crawling out from under the rocks to openly profess your desire to see people who don't think like you eliminated. At least we know who you are and what you really think. The cowardly part of the dance is over.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never said I didn't want to be called a name. I said I don't want to be a liberal because they tend to be a little more on the......uniformed side.

Ok let's try it this way. You sound like my dad while I was growing up in the 90's. BIG Rush listener. Everything was "liberals are doing this...", "liberals are screwing up that..." blah blah blah. His ENTIRE political position was based on what liberals weren't and a drive to NOT be a liberal. He was insufferable and my mom used to ban him from talking about Rush and his opinions from time to time. That is a terrible political ideology. First off it is hateful and full of stereotypes. Second off, it destroys all semblance of compromise. And third off, it makes you look childish, petty and unable to form your own political opinions.

All I get from you is that you sound like an angry lady who doesn't want to be a liberal because of various social implications so you think that defaults you to be a conservative. I feel like you need to spend better time fleshing out your political opinions and stop basing them on what you THINK people you don't agree with think. That's called a strawman and you are guilty of it with your "Liberals tend to be on the uninformed side" comment.


So Liberals decided to take all that away from comservatives and decided to break records...blowing away rush and others by at least 3:1 with flat out stupidity that instead of being done by a few radio hosts became ALL HOSTS..of ALL PROGRAMS.

IRONY IS THIS...the same people who hate Trump and government believe 9/11 was done as said by the most corrupt Republican government we have ever seen.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: PageLC14
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never said I didn't want to be called a name. I said I don't want to be a liberal because they tend to be a little more on the......uniformed side.

Ok let's try it this way. You sound like my dad while I was growing up in the 90's. BIG Rush listener. Everything was "liberals are doing this...", "liberals are screwing up that..." blah blah blah. His ENTIRE political position was based on what liberals weren't and a drive to NOT be a liberal. He was insufferable and my mom used to ban him from talking about Rush and his opinions from time to time. That is a terrible political ideology. First off it is hateful and full of stereotypes. Second off, it destroys all semblance of compromise. And third off, it makes you look childish, petty and unable to form your own political opinions.

All I get from you is that you sound like an angry lady who doesn't want to be a liberal because of various social implications so you think that defaults you to be a conservative. I feel like you need to spend better time fleshing out your political opinions and stop basing them on what you THINK people you don't agree with think. That's called a strawman and you are guilty of it with your "Liberals tend to be on the uninformed side" comment.


So Liberals decided to take all that away from comservatives and decided to break records...blowing away rush and others by at least 3:1 with flat out stupidity that instead of being done by a few radio hosts became ALL HOSTS..of ALL PROGRAMS.

IRONY IS THIS...the same people who hate Trump and government believe 9/11 was done as said by the most corrupt Republican government we have ever seen.


You're so exuberant that your writing is even less intelligible than usual. Having done my best to parse your word salad, though, I can also say that you're just flat-out wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Seriously, is that all you got?

I'm hardly going to address circumstances personal to me in the third person...my name is not Trump.

Perhaps it is because that content debunked your guy's stance, his perspective doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Gotta say though, I don't mind being compared to Obama....thanks for the compliment.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

I think the Republicans adequately understood the battlefield in the election and turned Democrat election hopes into dust.


No. You're embarrassingly wrong. The REPUBLICANS lost as badly as the Democrats. It was Trump who won. The Republican Party wanted nothing to do with him --- until he won. And now, like the political whores they are, they line up to kiss the hand of their King. Look at Romney during the campaign. And then he's all gooey when he's up for Sect. State. They're all whores. Democrats and Republicans alike. So no, The Republicans did NOT have a winning 'battle plan'. Every one of their candidates got stomped. Unless you're going to try and argue that Trump was in-line with the RNC at which point I will LOL you to death.

edit on 28-1-2017 by jtma508 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Pretty sure you are the no name dufus in the video promoting yourself..

Kind of hilarious you included video "reviews" in your op like a late night infomercial.
edit on 28-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Pretty sure you are the no name dufus in the video promoting yourself..

Kind of hilarious you included video "reviews" in your op like a late night infomercial.


It's like a particularly disgusting variant on the practice of grade schoolers passing notes that say "Someone likes you." It won't be long before we see threads like: "How long until we get to string up the gays? Asking for a friend."



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

The GOP jumped off a cliff and think they are flying...and they are ..until impact.

Confusing winning with losing.

The more fascists that show their stripes the better.


edit on 28-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I'd take it a step further and say that they placed exactly the wrong bets and put power above country on every level. If Trump continues on this trajectory and it turns out as horrifically as I fear, there will be trials and there will be death sentences, and no one is going to feel much sympathy for the likes of Paul Ryan. When you work to install a fascist dictator who campaigned on promises of being a fascist dictator and you fail to protect your country from their worst impulses, you should expect some severe consequences. That said, my mantra is "please let me be wrong please let me be wrong please let me be wrong about all of this."



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

On Reddit boards and the alt right community that helped troll, meme, # post and fake news Trump into office they now refer to Trump as big daddy and liberals as antifas...get that? anti-fascist is an insult to them...milo, bannons minion and Briebart author and a few others are leading the proudly fascist charge...and Trump loves them like pets.
edit on 28-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

"Righteous" is a dangerous word.



There it is. A confession. Exactly as the video describes.






edit on 28-1-2017 by mikegrouchy because: darkBake can defend his own post, when he returns



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: solargeddon
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Seriously, is that all you got?

I'm hardly going to address circumstances personal to me in the third person...my name is not Trump.

Perhaps it is because that content debunked your guy's stance, his perspective doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Gotta say though, I don't mind being compared to Obama....thanks for the compliment.



You're welcome.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Pretty sure you are the no name dufus in the video promoting yourself..

Kind of hilarious you included video "reviews" in your op like a late night infomercial.



Uh, thanks, maybe. Never having been invited to speak at the Heritage foundation, it seems unlikely though. As to late night informercials one must defer to your expertise on that.


/shrug
Mike Grouchy



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Pretty sure you are the no name dufus in the video promoting yourself..

Kind of hilarious you included video "reviews" in your op like a late night infomercial.



Uh, thanks, maybe. Never having been invited to speak at the Heritage foundation, it seems unlikely though.


/shrug
Mike Grouchy


You need an invitation to speak at the Heritage Foundation? I got the impression it was more like open-mike for fascist ideologically retarded folks?




top topics



 
69
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join