https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1844195742178586683
https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1844195742178586683
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Do you do anything other than just post links to Xitter?
Maybe engage your brain a bit, explain what you're thinking. Or have you become one of the mindless zombies that can only absorb short sentences and soundbites?
https://x.com/DC_Draino/status/1844195742178586683
Do you do anything other than just post links to Xitter?
Maybe engage your brain a bit, explain what you're thinking. Or have you becom
one of the mindless zombies that can only absorb short sentences and soundbites?
Maybe engage your brain a bit, explain what you're thinking. Or have become one of the mindless zombies that can only absorb short sentenc and soundbites?
That sounds like a proper description of those who never got a
Critical Thinking education. Neither by the first line of defence
against demagogs, their parents, nor by the second line, the school. The third line usually will be lost by deliberate w/o.
It's not called "a Critical Thinking education," it's just called "critical thinking."
Followers of the left are notorious for letting others think for them. News anchors, entertainers, corporations, organizations, department
heads, they all get together and decide for you guys how to think.
That's why we can't get you to disagree with anything the TV says.
Followers of the left are notorious for letting others think for them. News anchors, entertainers, corporations, organizations, department
heads, they all get together and decide for you guys how to think.
That's why we can't get you to disagree with anything the TV says.
Followers of the left are notorious for letting others think for them News anchors, entertainers, corporations, organizations, department heads, they all get together and decide for you guys how to think. That's why we can't get you to disagree with anything the TV says.
I know I'm sticking my head where it doesn't belong, but I'd like to
pose a challenge to people on "both sides," as it were.
Name 3 things where you hold a polar opposite view than the rank and
file of your party. (And don't wimp out. Show me real issues.)
Name 3 things where you hold a polar opposite view than the rank and file of your party. (And don't wimp out. Show me real issues.)
Followers of the left are notorious for letting others think for them.
News anchors, entertainers, corporations, organizations, department
heads, they all get together and decide for you guys how to think.
That's why we can't get you to disagree with anything the TV says.
I know I'm sticking my head where it doesn't belong, but I'd like to pose a
challenge to people on "both sides," as it were.
Name 3 things where you hold a polar opposite view than the rank and file of
your party. (And don't wimp out. Show me real issues.)
I would start, but I'm a political party orphan.
Name 3 things where you hold a polar opposite view than the rank and file of your party. (And don't wimp out. Show me real issues.)
1) Ignoring the obvious - my party ignores the obvious bigtime. They ignore the fact that regional GOP chairs are colluding with Democrats.
2) Ignoring the border - my party's elected representatives have elected to not make any attempts to solve the border crisis.
3) Ignoring phone calls and emails. Both the RNC and the NY GOP have something in common: they don't answer my calls/emails, or anyone else's.
Name 3 things where you hold a polar opposite view than the rank and fil your party. (And don't wimp out. Show me real issues.)
(1) I am pro-choice.
(2) Not certain this one applies any more, but I seem to be less
"excited" about getting involved with Israel than the party has been in the past.
(3) One that is more pertinent as of late is that I don't
believe the Office of the President having so much power is a good
thing. I also believe the President is not "always right" even if it is someone I voted for.
I came real close a few years ago to becoming a Libertarian but they seem to have shifted towards having no government, which I think would be a mistake.
I do not believe it is the government's job to redistribute wealth
to become overly involved in the foreign affairs of another state
self-identified as "socialist" or "communist." When I would ask them why they didn't vote for either of those (they were fielding candidates back then), they said they knew those wouldn't win but that the Democrats
could and were "close enough."
Hello Randall,
A challenge? You really have got to be kidding me.
I am so glad you brought this up. But why limit your list to just
three things, when there are so many more?
Let's take a look at the https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Since the first of all human rights is access to quality health
care, let's start there.
1) Ignoring the obvious - my party ignores the obvious bigtime. They ignore the fact that regional GOP chairs are colluding with Democrats
Not exactly a platform issue, but I could see where most Republicans wouldn't think that way.
2) Ignoring the border - my party's elected representatives have elec to not make any attempts to solve the border crisis.
This is a big one. I appreciate this commentary, because the messaging
is that Democrats are undoing all the work Republicans put in place to make progress on the border.
3) Ignoring phone calls and emails. Both the RNC and the NY GOP have something in common: they don't answer my calls/emails, or anyone els
I wouldn't look at this as a deviation at all. I think it's fairly common practice that people in government only make reference to "Suzy from
Small City" when it suits their election campaigns. Even then, it's not listening with intent to enact change.
I have a feeling there are a lot more silent Republicans on this issue. I don'
think Ohio's Issue 1 protecting women's rights would have passed here without
significant support from the right.
(2) Not certain this one applies any more, but I seem to be less "excited" about getting involved with Israel than the party has been in the past.
Interesting. I never could wrap my head around Israel. I don't think many people can. It was too complex and outside my wheelhouse when I was younger, and now... Well, how many other issues have commandeered the headlines in the past few decades? :)
(3) One that is more pertinent as of late is that I don't
believe the Office of the President having so much power is a good thing. I also believe the President is not "always right" even if it is someone I voted for.
We've hit on this a few times before. We're in full agreement on this one.
It's funny to me that both parties seem to be on this track. (I know it goes back a bit, but FDR might be the most egregious example on the Democratic side.)
I came real close a few years ago to becoming a Libertarian but they seem to have shifted towards having no government, which I think would be a mistake.
I was in that camp for about a decade, during the Harry Browne era. The closer
to the inside of that movement I got, the more disillusioned I became -- and that carried into my views across the board.
to become overly involved in the foreign affairs of another state
This practice might be one of my biggest frustrations with how we conduct foreign policy. We've seen a century of (sometimes rather severe) unintended consequences resulting from our meddling. We should have learned a lesson from
that by now.
It's the evil of our system, isn't it? When people we elect to represent us don't actually do so, we have to pick the least harmful alternative of the bunch.
There HAS to be a better way than to pull the lever and blindly hope your interests are being represented a few years down the road. (Oh, and boy do I have ideas! LOL)
People on both sides are trusting their committees too much. It makes me wonder
how Democrat voters are feeling about the dictatorship of their ill-fated >presidential primary.
People on both sides are trusting their committees too much. It makes me >wonder
how Democrat voters are feeling about the dictatorship of their ill-fated >presidential primary.
Most of them, from what I can tell, don't care just so long as they can beat Trump with whoever it is. Others seem glad they did it for the same reason -- i.e. they realized after the debate that Joe didn't have a chance.
People on both sides are trusting their committees too much. It makes me wonder how Democrat voters are feeling about the dictatorship of their ill-fated presidential primary.
Yea all the conservatives will agree that there's a border problem but they need to stop blaming just Democrats.
I wrote to Colgate about defective toothpaste
But when I write to the RNC, they can't even give me an explanation of what went wrong.
Most of them, from what I can tell, don't care just so long as they can beat Trump with whoever it is. Others seem glad they did it for the same reason -- i.e. they realized after the debate that Joe didn't have a chance.
But I don't get why anyone would feel good about replacing one bad candidate with another bad candidate. That doesn't make sense, and it also doesn't make sense for the leftists not to detect the puppetry in progress. "Hmm why does my party keep nominating the stupidest candidates?"
I think I'm more bothered that the party has basically said the sitting president isn't fit for office, but they're going to leave him there
until the election.
I wanted to work a polling station for the '04 election, but was barred
by the state because I wasn't "a registered member of either of the two primary political parties." Libertarians were really pounding the grassroots thing at the time, so I'm like, "Okay, let's fix the state
laws to be more inclusive of third parties."
Every call and email I sent to the local and state offices went
completely unanswered, so I ended up on the phone personally with the Secretary of State. Fought the battle and got a small win at the county level, but without any backing, the state law wasn't getting changed.
Meanwhile, I was still receiving invitations to the
three-digits-per-plate fundraisers and donation begging slips. Sorry folks, that's not how things happen.
But I don't get why anyone would feel good about replacing one bad cand with another bad candidate. That doesn't make sense, and it also doesn' make sense for the leftists not to detect the puppetry in progress. "Hm does my party keep nominating the stupidest candidates?"
Agreed but, to them, any candidate is greater than Trump and, for some
of them, any candidate is greater than any Republican candidate.
I think I'm more bothered that the party has basically said the sitting president isn't fit for office, but they're going to leave him there until the election.
Thank you. We all should be bothered by that. Bothered by Democrats for not doing something about it, and bothered by Republicans for them not doing something about it either despite having the house majority.
I wanted to work a polling station for the '04 election, but was barred by the state because I wasn't "a registered member of either of the two primary political parties." Libertarians were really pounding the grassroots thing at the time, so I'm like, "Okay, let's fix the state laws to be more inclusive of third parties."
That's suspicious. I would trust the 3rd party even more in that case.
Interesting. I never could wrap my head around Israel. I don't think man
The West set Israel up after WWII. I never saw or heard of any official promise but it seems to be the policy that we are responsible for helping to defend them ever since.
Browne seemed logical and not so off the wall. IMHO, they've shifted right since then and really are no longer much different than right-wing Republicans. They just are not as scared to say the quiet parts out loud as most Republicans are.
This practice might be one of my biggest frustrations with how we conduc foreign policy. We've seen a century of (sometimes rather severe) uninte consequences resulting from our meddling. We should have learned a lesso from that by now.
If they didn't learn it before, 9/11 should have finally taught them
their lesson. I think they believe the lesson was that they can do it better rather than they maybe need to stop.
It would be nice to have enough representative and senators in DC who can actually work together to come up with things they can agree on, even if they are from a different party, and can compromise on rather than doing nothing but bickering.
The West set Israel up after WWII. I never saw or heard of any official promise but it seems to be the policy that we are responsible for helping
to defend them ever since.
My understanding of the foundation was basically allowing Jewish immigrants to
pick whatever place they wanted to live and kick the Muslim residents out. "Sorry, folks. Gotta go." That's what I couldn't understand. How was there not
a more carefully crafted bilateral plan that wouldn't lead to the craziness like the PLO that followed? (And the insanity we're seeing now.)
Certainly, the Jewish community required safe haven following WWII. And obviously, the historical/religious significance of Israel is incredible. But
there had to have been a better way to execute that.
I feel silly about it now, but I used to also think that complete privatizatio
and deregulation should have been one of the pillars of our society. After witnessing how soulless and immoral (not amoral) business is firsthand, however... Yeah, no thanks.
Part of me thinks I'm romanticizing the political landscape leading up to the 2000s, but I genuinely feel that there was more respectful aisle crossing and cooperative dialogue in the past. It's only recently -- with a bit of help fro
talk radio and a few very vocal, unfiltered candidates -- that things seem to have gotten to the point where lifelong relationships are ended and it feels like we're on the verge of spilling words over into violent action.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 253 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 14:07:11 |
| Calls: | 1,646 |
| Files: | 3,994 |
| Messages: | 387,903 |