A Polemic Regarding the Orwellian Left

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

If you want a better analogy, try Brave New World. Mind you, that would still involve reading.

I have read 1984 (many times), but as is apparent by by simply reading (it's a big wall of text, I know), I never cited 1984, nor did I use it as an analogy, nor is it what defines "Orwellian". I clearly quoted his 1945 article "Through a Glass, Rosily". You might have known that, but that would involve reading.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Every good propaganda piece starts with a false premise. And polemic follows in grand fashion. That comment below is completely false. Which is why the remainder of his post is rubbish. Trump's policy to ban all Muslims, not his "remarks ... In general", are one of the reasons he is a racist and a fool.

Why must conservatives make up stuff to feel better?

"The implication is that his remarks—and according to Obama, any criticism of Islam in general—is recruitment propaganda for ISIS. Oh, and also fascist."

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I require clarifications on a few of your points, if you would.

First being your marginalizing of morals by labeling them religion based. I see those morals as empirically developed, then adopted and disseminated by religion.

Yes, there is confusion between morals and ethics. That is due to the overlap, on more than one level, between the two. In fact, I highly doubt one could develop ethics without having a moral background and understanding.
While the impulse towards ethics may be innate, ethics, itself, certainly is not.

Next you remove ideology from Government as well? Now without morals and ideology? What remains is pure, unadulterated, arbitrary control. No need for the concept of government at all. No predicable, articulated form to base conduct or consequence or co-operation.

Yes, arguing 'balance' does come across ideological...it also is narcissistic as well.

a reply to: SkyNetBeware

Trump has said he is not racist. So it is his word vs. yours, whom I think I can safely say, is a person who has never met him.

Given the insincerity of your remarks, and your proclivity to believe what people tell you to, I can completely regard your entire post as rubbish.

a reply to: SkyNetBeware

I just want to note that being Muslim means you are a follower of Islam and says nothing about your race. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, Hispanic Muslims and all other races of Muslims. Trump plan was a temporary ban of all Muslims regardless of race. Now, I do not agree with such actions, but I do not think Trump is full of hate either.

If you hate someone for the religion they practice, you are practicing religious discrimination and religious intolerance, but you are not specifically being a racist. Trump's plans are clearly a form of religious discrimination, but as he has stated many times he has many friends who are Muslims, so he is not totally religiously intolerant.

Lastly, if you fully read the OP you would see that Trump has admitted that he wants 'the ban' to figure out want is going on, which means he is indirectly telling us he does not know, and he is being honest(that is he does not know). All the other candidates act like they are experts on comparative religion and social conditions of the marginalized middle eastern people. If all these Senators and Secretaries know so much and want peace so bad, then why has their been

As of 3:59 p.m. EST Jan. 10, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 9,560 strikes

Source

and

while there were 28,714 U.S.-led coalition munitions dropped in 2015. This overall estimate is probably slightly low, because it also assumes one bomb dropped in each drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, which is not always the case.

Source and The source's source

These bombings are the number one recruitment source for Islamic extremist. I can assure you of that.

Les is not making stuff up, and your post goes a long way to prove the point of the OP.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness



I require clarifications on a few of your points, if you would.



First being your marginalizing of morals by labeling them religion based. I see those morals as empirically developed, then adopted and disseminated by religion.



Yes, there is confusion between morals and ethics. That is due to the overlap, on more than one level, between the two. In fact, I highly doubt one could develop ethics without having a moral background and understanding.

While the impulse towards ethics may be innate, ethics, itself, certainly is not.



Next you remove ideology from Government as well? Now without morals and ideology? What remains is pure, unadulterated, arbitrary control. No need for the concept of government at all. No predicable, articulated form to base conduct or consequence or co-operation.



Yes, arguing 'balance' does come across ideological...it also is narcissistic as well.

Empirically developed is variable and experienced based... each experience varies from person to person through their own experience of personal bias... which is exactly why moral based is crap for government and ethics is not. moral is black and white cut and dry with no wiggle room... a good example is the old stealing bread. moral would say you stole so youre gulity reguardless of why you stole. thats the problem when moral laws are on the books.

while it may be true that some instances are covered under the right thing to do umbrella in society... moral application of judgement tries to be a constant no matter what instead of a variable... of course position weath and power in the legal system alters moral laws into ethics at all levels of the justice system... so not a fair system for society to really function eh? the track record of over 2000 years of how morality in some places have done nothing to change society... its the same now in regard to people as it has always been to recorded history, its just that some activities are now seen in broad daylight and the more they are seen in broad daylight the more secure people feel about exiting whatever closted theyve been hiding in as whatever becomes more socially accepted.

its an illusion akin to out of sight out of mind... just because its unseen or legally policed to try to keep it from being seen doesnt mean the speak easys arent already fully populated waiting for the magic of legitamacy to come knocking. much like cannabis reform fears didnt manifest in colorado... kids in the street stoned and millions never used it now are going to and die from addiction blah blah as the rhetoric goes.

moral laws in society are like pretending theres a santa claus for societies sake, and those caught not spreading that propaganda are spoling it and must pay... in the light or in the dark it all still goes on regardless of law. so why not just let it all out in the open and stop pretending? and deal with any issues in an understanding and flexible manner with regulation instead of all of it being underground separating society? in not doing so its creating a sociopathic society full of narcisissm... whereas if the public was free to be honest about who they are without condemnation? we might actually can develop some compassion and sympathy for someone other than ourselves. this is my problem capitalism, it creates more and more divisions than it does any unity in tolerance and understanding.

ideology has root term of: ideal. nothing is ideal my friend youre always going to be swinging occams razor at the bonzai tree until its just a stump looking for lasting perfection. all the divisons and classifications we do on society not only shows what needs help but it also gives a population for which to correlate an address where cause doesnt actually dwell.

how else is the narcissism found in extremes going to function without balance? yes narcisissm can be found in the middle as well but when seen honestly? it is obviously no longer the middle ground

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

If you want a better analogy, try Brave New World. Mind you, that would still involve reading.

I have read 1984 (many times), but as is apparent by by simply reading (it's a big wall of text, I know), I never cited 1984, nor did I use it as an analogy, nor is it what defines "Orwellian". I clearly quoted his 1945 article "Through a Glass, Rosily". You might have known that, but that would involve reading.

Ouch... that hurt me and I was not even in that discussion. LOL

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness


There's plenty of latitude within the mores that were the mainstay of this country. The 'bread stealer' would also be judged on who he stole the bread from and for what purpose. How many times, how many loaves....

Not infinite latitude, however. Your example, an exception that proves the rule, is used to negate all morals? This seems unreasonable.

Yes, Occam's razor. Yes. Morals largely worked. In fact, the very argument and exceptional example you use is the mechanism used by the left. As a matter of opinion, far less freedoms have resulted from that source than any 'capitalism' contrary to your belief.

Back to the Razor, your 'ideal' method of solution/judgement sans morals may very well work for the individual/yourself. Indeed, many of us use it without exception almost non-stop in life and livingness, personally. (Proof of that latitude I referred to.)

Those very freedoms amongst all the individuals would result in disagreement to your arbitrary solution to issues as their solutions, even using the same criteria, would come up with their own and different solutions.

The moral 'system' allowed/s for a 'judge' and therefore latitude. Lots of wiggle room, methinks. Merely not infinite.

Balance you say. I say outstanding. Loose/general moral codes with wiggle room for the individuals. That, sir, is balance and what we had.

No morals? No ideals? No balance.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SkyNetBeware

Trump has said he is not racist. So it is his word vs. yours, whom I think I can safely say, is a person who has never met him.

Given the insincerity of your remarks, and your proclivity to believe what people tell you to, I can completely regard your entire post as rubbish.

Most racists don't advertise it... Usually you have to discern it from the words they use, or the policies they propose when you are talking about politicians.

If he is not racist, he does a good job impersonating one.

Racists very RARELY admit they are racists. They are incapable of being anything but politically correct and utterly dishonest for that reason.

They can try to pretend to have rational reasons for their racist leanings, but in the end, it's just hate.

Trump has also offended every Hispanic, and polls show he has done so, yet he claims Hispanics love him and he will win their vote. Such are the rants of dishonest, politically correct, racists.

If you are a trump supporter, you are almost certainly a racist. But few will admit it because fundamentally you are ashamed of yourself.

If you are a trump supporter, you are almost certainly a racist. But few will admit it because fundamentally you are ashamed of yourself.

Wow. I cannot believe I actually read this.
Opinions are opinions I suppose.

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: SkyNetBeware

Trump has said he is not racist. So it is his word vs. yours, whom I think I can safely say, is a person who has never met him.

Given the insincerity of your remarks, and your proclivity to believe what people tell you to, I can completely regard your entire post as rubbish.

Most racists don't advertise it... Usually you have to discern it from the words they use, or the policies they propose when you are talking about politicians.

If he is not racist, he does a good job impersonating one.

That's false. Nazis, The KKK or The New Black Panthers have no problem being racist.

If you're going to charge someone with something, you better be able to prove it, so prove it.

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Racists very RARELY admit they are racists. They are incapable of being anything but politically correct and utterly dishonest for that reason.

They can try to pretend to have rational reasons for their racist leanings, but in the end, it's just hate.

Trump has also offended every Hispanic, and polls show he has done so, yet he claims Hispanics love him and he will win their vote. Such are the rants of dishonest, politically correct, racists.

If you are a trump supporter, you are almost certainly a racist. But few will admit it because fundamentally you are ashamed of yourself.

I am reading hate as I go through your words.

How would you know if racists "very rarely" admit they were racist if you yourself weren't racist?

And throwing out "politically correct" as if not wanting to be falsely accused by an unscrupulous liar is politically correct is quite comical. More doublethink.

Until you can prove it you have at best unsubstantiated claims, or at worst, flat out political lies—the last resort of a political reprobate with little other reasonable avenues of discourse.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

Yea, I'm already seeing prophecies of the irrevocable split of the Republican party into two factions. In reality, its been split that way for some time.

Just read a long piece on Hogueprophecy.com, he'll be on C2C this evening and he's 12-0 in predicting presidential elections, or so he says and he's predicting a Hillary victory. In reality, that's a pretty safe bet.

But I was just listening to last night's C2C segment with Craig B. Hulet and he pointed out that the big change we're undergoing is that the Elites, via Globalization and such as the TPP are rendering the individual "Nation State" irrelevant in terms of global economy and he pointed out we can already see the effects of that with sub-$30.00 a bbl. oil which is destroying the US Oil and Gas Industry, (by design I might add).

So, I'd suspect that as things further fracture politically, we're going to see a very bad deterioration of the US economy over time with 2017 being the true beginning of that trend.

Just my reading of the "currents".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is interesting to see the posts of the room-temperature I.Q.s, the shills and hacks of the left.

ironically, this exactly how I came to support Trump. At first, merely to point out the hyperbole directed towards him. Then with a little research outside the normal media sites, a growing respect for his overall history.

Zero valid issues on a personal basis, hence resorting to the racist card when all else has failed. His, apparently, above average family. No issues there and his highly respected accomplishments in the N.Y. area. That includes Democrats who, apparently, give Trump more credit than Giuliani for NY's resurgence!

He has no campaign manager. He is a 'promoter' first and foremost, then a negotiator. he gets results.

If he somehow wins the nomination, I will vote for him.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness


There's plenty of latitude within the mores that were the mainstay of this country. The 'bread stealer' would also be judged on who he stole the bread from and for what purpose. How many times, how many loaves....

Not infinite latitude, however. Your example, an exception that proves the rule, is used to negate all morals? This seems unreasonable.

Yes, Occam's razor. Yes. Morals largely worked. In fact, the very argument and exceptional example you use is the mechanism used by the left. As a matter of opinion, far less freedoms have resulted from that source than any 'capitalism' contrary to your belief.

Back to the Razor, your 'ideal' method of solution/judgement sans morals may very well work for the individual/yourself. Indeed, many of us use it without exception almost non-stop in life and livingness, personally. (Proof of that latitude I referred to.)

Those very freedoms amongst all the individuals would result in disagreement to your arbitrary solution to issues as their solutions, even using the same criteria, would come up with their own and different solutions.

The moral 'system' allowed/s for a 'judge' and therefore latitude. Lots of wiggle room, methinks. Merely not infinite.

Balance you say. I say outstanding. Loose/general moral codes with wiggle room for the individuals. That, sir, is balance and what we had.

No morals? No ideals? No balance.

i appreciate the accessment but disagree simply because you certinaly manage to write a lot without really saying anything... reiterate a little mix words then a lil cherry or two of guised and not so guised personal attacks in your posts... siddling up to Lesmis and berating others with what you appear to personally be doing yourself seems disingenuious what kind of bombs are you planning to drop on future posters that may require being on his team? courious conflagerated nonsense is not a return reply btw as rhetoric seems to be your personal position through all the hubbabaloo looking to discredit others with a piss poor rebuttal when disagreeing.

many are pretty adept at this sort of subterfuge business... my advice? keep practicing

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Ah. I take it that ends the discussion?

Now I miss your unqualified love.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

ah you assume too much... coming to the defence of everyone in this thread isnt a personal endeavor, its more of a duty to open dialogue and understanding. berating others no matter how deserving in ones own biased opinion may seem? it plays right into the hands of what the OP and further elaborations of the author of it has stated... have you everyones IQ scores? do you have credible edvidence we are all disinfo agents and helically spiral threads like when loosening nuts instead of tightening them politically? i simply called you out on you creating a hostile environment for discusion instead of intelectual discourse, so no need to pout about personal attachments of love sweetheart.

if youd like a discussion youre going to have to state your position and why you feel the way you do aboutthat position as a rebutal otherwise youre wasting my and others time... te onlything i can retort back from what you replied with is: do you think it fair religious morality is written into law forcing the populous subjected to it even when not all believe in that same religious retoric? I dont want the public subjected shira law and i dont want the public subjected to christain law either... morals are rooted in religion and are not a basis for which the society collectively called the US should operate. it wasnt set up to be that way but over time politicians degraded the mision statement making it that way... same as lobbists for corporations but instead trying to make it into some christian utopia instead of the melting pot it was founded around.

if we are to move forward some what intact and by peaceful means then the morality laws need to be booted and replaced if need be based on ethics and values not religious dogma making dry counties and everything else that restricts personal freedom. one would think staunch capitalists would agree with this sentiment instead of pandering a religious base... as many moral laws restrict the free market... theres a market but oh sorry sunday must be restricted for alcohol or bars need to close or smoking is bad so you can do it... wanna know what the number one cause of death is? living. not being able to live ones life without moral restrictions isnt really any kind of life unless you like being an outlaw or agree with mass manipulation and control of people.

so it is what it is... but it doesnt have to be what weve made it.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Nothing to assume.

Stooping to labelling Trump a racist and any that may or do support him falls into one of those three categories.

It is insulting, false, political diatribe and merits the response I gave. You feel honor bound to defend those that accuse others of racism without any proof?

I am not restricted by PC and offer no modification to that post whatsoever. Morons, shills or political hacks.

Afterthought. The OP gave numerous rebuttals to these claims with no reasonable response. If reasonable response achieves no result, then all that remains is labelling back with at least the alternate options....there are three.....

The only way to prove anything to a racist is to have them undergo several years of psychotherapy to get them beyond denial and self-shame. There's a strong association between racism and climate change denialism, and if you can't convince a science denier with facts relating to laws of physics, how are you to prove anything on any other issue?