As I have said many times, the biggest impediment to progress in this country is the conservative movement as it stands today (see: apocalyptic cult). While we are seeing signs of them moving away from psychosis, they seem unable to grasp that our country has one direction: forward. Yet, it is not simply the conservative that are holding us back. Another big impediment are the liberals themselves.
Liberals are, by their very nature, diplomatic and reflective. So when conservatives say things like climate change is a hoax perpetuated by people want to control us or that having universal background checks means a national registry, we pause and wonder if what they are saying might be true. That's where the first mistake is made. We take their assertions at face value. The second mistake is then the movement toward the playing field that they want to play on (i.e. where they can "win"). By even considering that climate change legislation is going to lead to internment camps or that a national registry is really, really bad, we feed into their paranoia and, sadly, embolden their argument.
So, the lesson is quite simple. Refuse to allow them to set the table. Ignore the impulse to be diplomatic and fair minded when they say something ridiculous. Instead, ask questions. Why is a national registry bad? What happens after that? Who are those people whose backgrounds are not checked now? What should we do with them instead? What should we do about climate change?
When you hear their answers, it will become obvious very quickly that these people should not be in charge of anything.
4 comments:
So when conservative say things like climate change is a hoax perpetuated by people want to control us or that having universal background checks means a national registry
So when you refuse to actually hear correctly what is said in the first case, what makes you think you are capable of hearing correctly any answers to your so-called questions?
Liberals are, by their very nature, liberal and reflective
Says the most closed minded and least reflective person on this blog.
the movement toward the playing field that they want to play on
That's called breaking down the argument to relevance and facts - I can understand why you don't like arguments moving in that direction.
Liberals are, by their very nature, liberal and reflective.
Never know that by your own example.
Probably another of those voices in your head.
Let's have some fun. I'm going to present a fact to a liberal and we can all watch how he reacts...
WaPo piece on crony capitalism with the following punch line:
Tesla’s Model S is, no doubt, a cool car. Whether it serves any public purpose commensurate with the public resources it has absorbed is another question.
For now, all we know is that Elon Musk, backed by Wall Street and Washington, has built a very efficient machine for the upward distribution of wealth and income.
Holy rent-seeking Steiglitz! What to do? What to do? I know - give more power to Washington! That will fix it!!!
or that having universal background checks means a national registry,
I will reiterate one of those questions because it directly deals with this issue:
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration? (First asked February 26, 2013)
In other words, even the leading Democrats pushing "universal background checks" say that it requires a "national registry". Yet somehow, we are "psychotic" for saying exactly the same thing.
Liberals are, by their very nature, diplomatic and reflective.
So tell me, is "them moving away from psychosis" being "diplomatic"? Is it "reflective" when the you are unable to see the correct answer to that question?
Post a Comment