The list is a grab bag of conspiracy theorist and libertarian talking points that I am almost convinced is not meant to be serious. Here is my take:1. You know there’s no meaningful difference between major political parties (Democrats and Republicans): This is largely true from the perspective of the average person but fundamental differences remain between the parties that are often brushed under the rug and/or dismissed by those making this charge.2. You understand that the Federal Reserve, or international central banking more broadly, is the engine of our economic problems: If this point is not straight out of Ayn Rand nothing is. The loony right love to go off about the danger of fiat currency and it's accompanying built-in inflation and they have some good points. However, the real root of our problems is people both rich, not so rich, and poor making stupid decisions without adequate analysis of possible consequences The Fed is not responsible for the housing bubble, college debt, or consumer debt; individuals are.3. You know that preemptive war is never necessary: I am obviously going to disagree with this one as it is false on its own merits. If done properly and with sufficient violence of execution preemptive war is a very good tool in the nation's toolbox.4. You know that you’re being systematically poisoned, how, by whom, and why: I read this and immediately thought of the conspiracy theorists telling us that Fluoride in the water is not for healthy teeth but for mind control and all the idiots that say modern food processing and production methods are killing us. This is the same group responsible for the return of the Whooping Cough because they refuse to have their children immunized.5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: Isn't it conservatives who are largely trying to do this now in response to the Democrats successful efforts at same over the past 50+ years? Conservatives are losing the battle for the soul of America and rather than try and compete with the materialism and narcissism of the left in the battle of ideas they are now trying to legislate their morality into practice. Shouldn't we as conservatives spend more time trying to show and convince people that leftist post-modernism is destructive of a functioning society and win that battle among the people where it counts instead of wailing about how the media and government is against us. I think I remember such efforts at convincing being called witnessing. It seems to me that most conservatives and religious spend an inordinate amount of time being righteous about how good they are instead of trying to show others how fulfilling the correct moral path can be.6. You know that the mainstream media is wholly owned and manipulated by the ruling elite: This is true yet a trope at this point that makes people start to ignore you as soon as you bring it up.7. You know that your neighbors are not your enemy even if you have fierce ideological disagreements: My neighbor can indeed be my enemy and we should not forget this but at the same time we should not let that recognition of it color everything we do. Conservative and progressive ideology are incompatible and all we can do is convert progressives, they are certainly not amenable to enlightenment.8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Is it even really necessary to mention how the NWO crowd has discredited themselves in the eyes of the majority? Anyone that is too strident about anything will be ignored by all except fellow travelers and the NWO meme is no different from anything else.9. You recognize that there are esoteric powers manipulating our physical world: This part turns off everyone who is not a person of faith. Is it not possible to be both enlightened and awake without going to church on Sunday?10. The power to change the world rests with you and you alone: BS, the power to change the world rests with those in control of the levers of power. Only if conservatives can get and keep control of the levers of state power can we begin the process of changing the world for real.Let the hate and disdain begin. I will pit my realism against the kind of conservative libertarian messianic thought in this list every day of the week because in the end it is only realism that will bring America and the world back onto a moral path. Remember, the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah that appeared 2,00 years ago to come because they are too blind to see that he has come and gone and they missed the boat.
A fully armed and dangerous lamb at that and you will not find me in the slaughterhouse. That would be pacifists and cowards that will end up there because they are too proud or whatever to fight for their liberty. I don't want to start a fight or flame war or anything so will now bow out.
5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: Isn't it conservatives who are largely trying to do this now in response to the Democrats successful efforts at same over the past 50+ years? Conservatives are losing the battle for the soul of America and rather than try and compete with the materialism and narcissism of the left in the battle of ideas they are now trying to legislate their morality into practice. Shouldn't we as conservatives spend more time trying to show and convince people that leftist post-modernism is destructive of a functioning society and win that battle among the people where it counts instead of wailing about how the media and government is against us. I think I remember such efforts at convincing being called witnessing. It seems to me that most conservatives and religious spend an inordinate amount of time being righteous about how good they are instead of trying to show others how fulfilling the correct moral path can be.
I find this whole issue of allowing/not allowing the legislation of morality to be somewhat unbelievable. Can we technically force morality on anyone? No, unless perhaps we drug them and duct tape them to their chairs to prevent them from moving/thinking on their own. Can we facilitate morality? Yes, I think this is obvious with any criminal law. The fact that we punish murder, theft, fraud, etc. is an indication that we find these things morally wrong and is an attempt to curb such actions.
I just find it amusing that anybody thinks either side of the political divide has a lock on legislating morality. Isn't legislating morality at the heart of law itself? Laws are strictures defined to codify what the ruler or majority thinks is morally acceptable and to punish those that break that moral code. At least that is the way I see it. I make no comment either way about whether I think the changes in law in America recently are drifting in a direction I dislike or approve of, I am simply stating a belief about the nature of law itself.
A fully armed and dangerous lamb at that and you will not find me in the slaughterhouse. That would be pacifists and cowards that will end up there because they are too proud or whatever to fight for their liberty. I don't want to start a fight or flame war or anything so will now bow out.
Who are you going to fight? If there is no conspiracy to take your liberty going on, what have you to prep for? I'm confused.
Who are you going to fight? If there is no conspiracy to take your liberty going on, what have you to prep for? I'm confused.
It is called preparedness for preparedness's sake. You could also call it not taking freedom for granted. But then, I did voluntarily put my life on the line in service to my country. If I were to be really offensive I would say that nobody who has not voluntarily risked their lives for others even has a right to be having this conversation. A foxhole is a very different place than in front of a computer spouting off about chem-trails the trilateral and such. Of course, I am not saying that though.
It is called preparedness for preparedness's sake. You could also call it not taking freedom for granted. But then, I did voluntarily put my life on the line in service to my country. If I were to be really offensive I would say that nobody who has not voluntarily risked their lives for others even has a right to be having this conversation. A foxhole is a very different place than in front of a computer spouting off about chem-trails the trilateral and such. Of course, I am not saying that though.
I really can't make hide or hair or what you're saying to be honest.
I just find it amusing that anybody thinks either side of the political divide has a lock on legislating morality. Isn't legislating morality at the heart of law itself?
I agree with you if you mean that both political sides are attempting to legislate morality. One side, however, would probably not admit that it is doing this, but blames the other side for doing it.
I really can't make hide or hair or what you're saying to be honest.
That is why we cannot have an intelligible discussion about this. Our points of view are so divergent they are not even on the same continent. But then, that is our right as free people. Just think, I would say that we both on the conservative side of the political scale. We are pretty far apart but still conservative. If we can not have a productive discussion between the two of us how are we ever going to have one with liberals who have some really strange notions about society and government and governments role in society? That inability to converse constructively is what will eventually doom the country to either ruin or Civil War. I am still not sure which is more likely.
One side, however, would probably not admit that it is doing this, but blames the other side for doing it.
Both ends of the political spectrum are doing this. I think conservatives tend to be a little more open about wanting to legislate morals with regards to such things as abortion and contraception on demand but they still do it nonetheless. There are two sides to every moral argument and like every other political issue both sides of the aisle are so busy making noise they cannot and do not hear the other side. This lack of communication is just a symptom of what is wrong and not the cause though.
I actually think that liberals and conservatives can both honestly agree that they desire to legislate morality. Both sides would agree that punishing murder is good, and that it in effect legislates morality. IMO, liberals differ from conservatives in that the former does not view morality as being rooted in anything permanent or objective, but instead as something changing across cultures and time. I think this is true in some relative aspects of morality, but not its absolute aspects. I think the criticism of "legislating morality" is really rooted in political rhetoric which sounds good on its face, but which is actually intellectually untruthful. I think that there are honest liberals who would agree that this criticism is therefore in error.
Both ends of the political spectrum are doing this. I think conservatives tend to be a little more open about wanting to legislate morals with regards to such things as abortion and contraception on demand but they still do it nonetheless. There are two sides to every moral argument and like every other political issue both sides of the aisle are so busy making noise they cannot and do not hear the other side. This lack of communication is just a symptom of what is wrong and not the cause though.
What I meant was that liberals accuse conservatives of trying to legislate morality, but I don't think they would admit to doing it themselves. I do not recall hearing this same criticism lodged against liberals by conservatives. Part of this whole discussion revolves around semantics. Some people equate "morals" with religious precepts, which most people agree are not enforceable. The problem is that they are not necessarily equivalent. Murder is morally wrong, and it is also wrong according to religious precepts, but I would not say that society deems murder wrong simply because of this religious precept.At the end of the day, confusion about the terms has led to problems in the way the issues are framed.
The list is a grab bag of conspiracy theorist and libertarian talking points that I am almost convinced is not meant to be serious. Here is my take:...8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Is it even really necessary to mention how the NWO crowd has discredited themselves in the eyes of the majority? Anyone that is too strident about anything will be ignored by all except fellow travelers and the NWO meme is no different from anything else.
While I don't agree with everything on the list (or even most of it), I don't think it's all "conspiracy theory". For example, #8 - do you really think that people/groups do not exist which would desire to have control over the planet if they so had the opportunity? Take a look at the issue of global warming, and the implementation of global taxation. To me, this sounds like it's an attempt by a singular group of rulers desiring to exert its control over the entire globe. No, this may not be a plan for global domination at this stage, but what kind of dictatorship begins all at once? Alternatively, what do hard core Muslims want? Would they desire control over the entire globe? While I do not think that global domination is inevitable or feasible in the near future, I am nevertheless fearful that certain forces would like to accomplish this in the long run.And just to stir the pot a bit, this was on Drudge today. Listen to the first sentence or two by Biden:[html][youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1AMYHHAXhI?rel=0&w=480&h=360%5D%5B/html%5D