Now that we have established certain ground rules ... (
Well... I see your point but I still don't agree with your statement because although some people will choose death before compilance other's will comply to survive. In some cases, a man would rather die than comply but complies anyway for the sake of his child's survival. Don't forget how monsterous humans can be. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the statement is too general. Maybe if you said "Not all men can be forced." To that, I would agree.
br You brought up a very excellent, lucid, intell... (
The best way to answer this might be to use the example of how people on the other side do the same thing. They support the principals of the Trump Administration and refuse to accept the criticism of their opponents with such hatred that they turn a deaf ear to any idea that is different to theirs. You can't tell me that there's no such thing as an intollerant Trump supporter.
Now if you want, we can ditch the partisan flim-flam and get right down to the heart of the matter, common to both sides. Humans have a compelling need to identify with a group. This inate need is deeply set in what Freud would have called "the id" and Darwin, I'm sure would have considered this base human nature a mode of survival that allowed the species to propagate because if there is one thing that has allowed human to survive the jungles of the past it's the way we gather in groups. I think we all underestimate the power this need has over our ability to reason and to answer your question, I think for a person who exhibits this hipocritical "ok for me but not for you" it's the simply the emotional need for him to insist that his group is right and to accept anything else is an emotional defeat that quite frankly, few people, especially in the American "#1" culture, are capable of dealing with.
I have seen this before, I seen it with the older conservatives of this very same nation. I seen the same actions that the Obama administration used, by the Roman Catholic Church! In this country and in the Middle Ages it didn't work for the Catholics just like it didn't work for the Obama Administration as this form of intolerance is not working for the Muslim extremists either.
It's interesting that you mention "older conservatives" (no doubt the John McCain variety some of you call RINO's), the Obama Administration (of course) and the Catholic Church, leaving the group(s) I imagine YOU identify with unscathed. This in itself is an example of that emotional need for a person to insist that his group is right and the classic approach to doing this is to contrast with the the other groups that are wrong. Anyone who can't admit to the faults and fallacies of his own group, even his own person, is not being completely honest.
Know this, I am a two fold man, if you want to call it that. I am intolerant to ignorance, and intolerant to stupidity. For example, I believe if you stick your finger in a light socket, you deserve to be shocked, for you know better. As far as the ignorant, there is enough information out there, that if a person is ignorant about a subject they can look it up. In directly, it puts them in the same category as the stupid person shocking themselves purposely.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance is always avoidable. My father died of Parkinson's because there is no such thing as a doctor who isn't ignorant of the cure.
For this reason, when I review the facts, I use patience, and restraint.
I can't tell you how many hotheads have told me the same thing. But yes, quite often patience and restraint is the antithesis of stupidity.
In this generation of society, there is intolerance, and there is instant gratification. These two things are what I have against the Obama administration, everything else is a smoke screen.
Wow... That's a pretty big statement there Ranger... Is this a fancy way of saying the Obama Administration was stupid?
Since we're on a higher plain here (or at least that's what you seem to suggest) I'm going to point out that there hasn't been an administration in U.S. history that hasn't catered to some elements of instant gratification and intolerance, whether intentional or not and that includes the Obama Administration. Certainly, you can't tell me that me that Trump's heavy use of executive orders isn't a form of instant gratifiication and there's no better word to describe his approach to immigration policy than intollerance.
One thing I would like to point out here is the reason why I said... "whether intentional or not". You have to understand that in politics an action may be intended for one purpose while at the same time benefiting the objectives of another. For instance, a president might make a move that he feels will improve conditions in the long term for everyone. But that move might also provide instant gratification for businesses that can take immediate advantaghe of the change. Opposition groups will no doubt put the two in juxtaposition, saying the only reason the president made the move was for the instant gratification of the applauding businesses.
I'm sure you can already imagine the examples.
Now like I said, I am fair, that is why you heard my frustration when I asked for concrete evidence. I don't care if a person is a bully or not, but if that person harms in anyway another, then that person must be punished. If it is justified for one person to commit an act, in a particular situation, then it is equally justified for another person to commit the same act given the same situation. This is fair.
An eye for an eye. It's hard for us not to gravitate to this mode of thinking, especially when the initial offense is committed by "an opponent". Much, MUCH more a challenge for us to follow the advice of Ghandi or Christ and "turn the other cheek". The id in us wants to be bold and defiant and strikes because that's what the id does without knowing that it's ever so much bolder and defiant to turn the other cheek. This is not understood with the awe of seeing it happen or the courage to carry it out.
Mind you I brought up issues from 1988 to present, so I cannot be counted with, "Well you are just a trump, or conservative, or Republican supporter", the reason for this is because everyone is judge-able based upon the same rules that we set down for ourselves. If it is right for one person to do an action, it is right for all to do the same action, given all things are equal.
Well, conservatives and Republicans WERE around in 1988 so I don't know what immunity you think issues from that period give you. Still, I think I understand your point about the rules being applied equallly. In a purely legal sense I agree with you, but in a different context things change, for instance it would be right for a player at a black jack table with two kings and an ace to hold... that doesn't apply to the guy with three deuces. He needs a hit.
I choose this analogy to introduce an idea that's surprisingly ellussive... The idea is that a good hand can be an unfair advantage WITHIN a set of rules that are applied equally. Most of the world is ruled by a wealthy class and we are no exception. Our "fair laws" create a system where the wealth advantage is not countered. It wouldn't be so bad if it were really just a game but life we only get one deal... If we get a bad hand, the "fair laws" can be an inescapable form of oppression. A lot of our laws were established to protect us from this oppression and they will always be debated as "unfair" to those holding blackjacks in their hands.
The problem with everything today is intolerance intended to divide. This is the greatest enemy of the United States. If we are to remain a nation with an identity of freedom, then freedom as a whole, for the purpose of the greater good, should be the principle that governs our actions, and not the intolerance of being duped into the lies that have already been presented to us.
mmm.... I think you mean the intollerance of lies, not the intolerance of being duped by them, right? I mean, you ARE quite literally saying we should not be guided by our intollerance of being duped.
We all have been duped to believe that Obamacare is the best thing, since the New Deal.
Eh... speak for yourself on that one. I personally don't think it's THAT great and most liberals I know as well Obama himself seem to agree. I don't know if you listen when Democrats talk but if I could have a nickle for everytime I've heard them say "it's not perfect, but it's a start" I'd be rich. I mean obviously, I support it, you've seen me defend it but that's onlt because it's better than what we had before. What we find so impressive about the ACA is just that Obama actually rolled it out... Actual reform... Something presidents and legislators have been trying to do for decades.
There is a danger in this frame of thought. Most of Congress, and most of the American Public suffered damages due to this legislation.
Can you back that up? I personally see no evidence to support that claim.
br Now, I believe in what Trump said, "We ca... (
OK... calm down... take a deep breath.
First of all, Trump isn't the first one to say "we can do better"... That's actually what Obama said... verbatim... AS he was INVITING the Republicans to HELP us improve the ACA. What really makes this hard for us is that we keep saying it's a work in progress and we keep asking the Republicans to help us build it... Heck the ACA is mostly based on ideas the Republicans came up with! If the liberals just did what they wanted they would have rolled out a single-payer system.
As it is, the small token of that concept that was written into the ACA (the public option) was removed in response to Republican demand. So, it's proven, it's in the records that Obama DID in fact compromise a LOT with Republicans and yet, the Republicans STILL wanted to kill it... They used every dirty in the book and STILL couldn't do it. Even after gaining control of the entire government they [b]STILL[.b] couldn't do it. You know why? Because the bottom line is the people need healthcare and no one has yet figured out a better way to do it and if the Republicans killed the ACA there wouldn't be anyway for them to hide or lie about the ugly consequences.
Did you ever ask the question, if Obama was the head of the executive branch, that has the power of the sword, then why did his people, which includes all of law enforcement from the beat cop all the way to the FBI, and NSA, why did his people kill Ferguson in St. Luis?
What? First of all it's "St. Louis", not "St. Luis", secondly, no one killed Ferguson... Ferguson is a city in the the county of St. Louis and finally Obama's "people" weren't involved in any of the killing. It was a local police officer that murdered a black kid in cold-blood.
Regardless if it was or wasn't racially motivated, why did the commander-in-chief refuse to obey the order of the president
Ranger... the Commander-In-Cheif *IS* the President.
I dunno man... it's getting late, I'm getting tired and despite your cordiallity, I feel like you post is turning into a long meandering rant. So I'm just going to fast forward to your final point.
Now lets start here, who could be a good person, who when put into the fire, stand up for the greater good? Let's start here. And let's discuss based upon the principles I wrote here, how we, on the local level could produce people of the character I am suggesting. We, as the majority of Americans know what we don't want, and most of us are divided on who we want, but we will get what we need. The first step is to work on the local level.
Yes... the first step is to work on the local level. I'm glad we can agree on that.