About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 11:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing Obama is producing is a pile of easily provable lies.

Lies that he speaks with crystal clarity, that anyone can readily see is a lie.

For example, he is constantly selling his forced redistribution with the line, "What is wrong with -asking- those who make more to pay a little more?"

Of course, there is nothing wrong with 'asking,' and nothing wrong with using the bully pulpit to 'ask.'

But he's not advocating anything at all like 'asking.' He is advocating public policy, legislation enforceable by law at the point of a gun. Asking is nowhere to be seen, and thus, the lie in plain view.

When we are 'asked' the implication is that we might say 'no.' If we are forbidden by law from saying 'no' then the act being discussed has nothing to do with 'asking.' So why is he able to endlessly get away with this public lie? It makes what he is advocating sound different than what it actually is.

Free Americans acting as peers don't tell each other, we ask each other. Forced association with what some of regard as 'nothing wrong with' is not an American idea.

Rape is abhored precisely because of the issue of forced association. It's not that humans hate intercourse. There is a fundamental difference between asking and telling, between sex and rape.

In America, not even military service is staffed via forced association. If even that national cause does not justify forced association in America, then ... what does?

What pressing social theory is so precious that Americans should throw away all considerations of free association and instead entertain exactly what makes rape 'rape' in order to pursue it as a matter of public policy? The pet theories of handful of radical academics do not qualify.

Scott Nearing was impatient over the rate of 'Progress' of Jesus Mission here on earth?

Not reason enough to embrace rape.

Dead German Philosophers from the 1800s so dismayed by Malthus that they saw no other solution other than a massive marshaling of mankind into subservient bees?

Not reason enough to embrace rape.

4 pinheads in some Ivy League dorm one night figure it all out?

Not reason enough to embrace rape.



Post 1

Monday, September 24, 2012 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
With Obama the media is giving him a pass on so many fronts one wonders if those people are asleep at the wheel. A point like the one about "asking them" is never raised even on the Fox TV talks programs. As if there were a kind of code of silence in place! But maybe it is because so many folks, even those opposed to Obama's massive forced redistributionism, support some such forced policy and know that if they raise the issue, their own pet projects funded from such redistribution would get undermined.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, September 24, 2012 - 2:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that there is a powerful psychological governor in place that stops any media person from asking or commenting on anything that would imply or entail a positive answer or conclusion that is outside of the current location of the Overton Window.

That is, they seem to have been 'trained' to not go into areas that moves the intellectual context, even if only for a moment, too far from where their sub-culture is now. This is the hallmark of a society that thinks in concretes and feels uncomfortable with principles. It is a mechanism for using group think instead of reasoning. This is why the left is so successful with cliches and emotional appeals rather than reasoning from basic principles.

If you don't reason from principles, you need something to let you formulate responses that work in a journalistic context - that would be pushing hidden agendas of the group, emotional reactions, politically correct responses, cliches, talking points, group-think and an Overton governor.

This avoidance of positions too far from some presumed mainstream position (which for the press is to the left of the population at large, and that makes them keep working to shift the window to the left) makes it safer to discuss practical consequences of a policy, rather than to examine it on moral grounds. This makes it more popular to discuss process stories instead of policy stories. This explains why anything labeled "ideological" will be dead - as if pronouncing it ideological makes it unnecessary to say any more. This makes it more popular for the far left to use ridicule of the opponent than to argue in favor of Obama's ideological positions which are too far to the left. This is why the libertarian positions, or strict constitutionalists, or serious balanced budget advocates get dismissed immediately - they are so far to the right that they are outside of the Overton Window.

Calvin Coolidge, in response to a serious economic downturn, cut taxes by 50% and he refused to spend money on things that weren't authorized in the constitution. That is clearly what we need now, but it is seen as too extremist from the current location of the Overton Window. So, we can't cut taxes by 50% without first moving the window to the right. The Overton Window is a model for the mass political psychology in a society and it is useful in seeing more realistically what a given change would take in time or effort.

By relying on an emotionally based guidance system the left studiously avoids those things to right of them, only goes so far to the left, and this is a shared, flock-like, mechanism for responding to all political issues.

It must be the liberal college professors in journalism, history, and poli-sci classes that model this mental process for them, and then it gets reinforced at work when they get into NBC, ABC, NY Times, etc. The base of this avoidance is keeping a fuzzy mind and ignoring the dissonance generated by being partisan on the inside while pretending to be neutral on the outside. That is, being accepting of lying as a norm.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 7:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is also elementary.

Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG)


It exists for one reason: detachments are normally found at US Embassies to protect personnel, especially embassies in harms way. Not FAST units after the fact, but MCESG units 24/7/365 all around the world.


On 9/11, when the consulate in Libya was attacked, there was no MCESG detachment at the embassy; at the request of the Sec of State, the MCESG detachment was not present at those and other embassies in the M.E.

I'm going to repeat that, because it seems not to register the first time.

On 9/11, when the consulate in Libya was attacked, there was no MCESG detachment at the embassy; at the request of the Sec of State, the MCESG detachment was not present at those and other embassies in the M.E.

The reason? What 'reason' could there possibly be? To present a less 'muscular' presence, in some kind of half-assed left wing 'third way' experiment? As if, if we show less muscle at those embassies in harms way, the Muslim street will love America again?

They raped our ambassador before murdering him.

Shouldn't our press be asking questions about why there was no MCESG detachment on 9/11? Why is no explanation being demanded for this puddingheaded move? Was this just Sec Clinton carrying out Obama's dangerous policies, or did she agree with it or even initiate it?

The press is helping Obama hide his fuck up. Terrorists murdered -- and worse -- a US Ambassador on what has always been regarded as American soil. He was left without a Marine detachment protecting the embassy, as a direct consequence of Koombaya Obama Policy. He is trying to Chicago finesse the blood off his hands at the height of his re-election campaign, and the press has totally sold out and is helping him do it.

I always wondered what it was like in the former Soviet Union living with a press that was simply a propaganda agent of the state, but I've long not had to wonder because we are living it here.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 9/26, 7:24pm)


Post 4

Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some will spin and quibble with this; a consulate is not an embassy, and the mission of those Marines is actually to protect government secrets and materials.

But their mission includes both consulates and embassies, and I'm damn sure the person of that Ambassador was a holder of government secrets; when they are protecting government secrets, they are by necessity protecting the persons who hold those secrets.

But... wait for the spin in the news, as more people ask the question, "W.t.f.? Who, exactly, made the decision not to have Marines protecting our Ambassador(and his secrets), and what was the reason for that decision?

What 'third way' wet dream was behind this cluster fuck?



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.