Intolerance and double standards [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

View Full Version : Intolerance and double standards

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 17:02

Some of the members here dislike my posts that focus on things I dislike on the "left" side of the paradigm. They even dislike my use of the word "Liberal" in regards to concepts espoused by the "left" and feel it's bad to label. It's a general term and easily identifies certain portions of the population. I dare say if you look at the two pictures below you would state one person is probably liberal and the other is probably conservative:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uPYrBj86XbY/TdbQQsrydeI/AAAAAAAAAAU/Bbuy1ATNOjA/s1600/Ian+hippie.jpg http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q8-zsPkKprc/0.jpg

Ok, so it wasn't easy to find one kid in a suit, but labels exist for reasons. I could use:

http://www.calbaptist.edu/uploadedimages/About/girls_visit_ucr_1957_58.jpg http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/julymar_album_2007/hippies.jpg

The facts are groups do certain things typically and they are stereotypes and the examples are not collectively exhaustive or mutually exclusive, but for general terms it applies.

Now having dealt with that, there is an amazing amount of buzz words used by liberals to try to stop others who disagree with them. They talk about those who disagree with them needing to learn tolerance or show tolerance and be non-judgmental, but by their very statements they are intolerant and judging of those who disagree with them. It's natural and it should not be used to stop discussion.

The MSM is biased towards the liberal left. I will share just one issue and demonstrate it, and this explains my posts giving equal time and leveling the playing field.

1. Local Conservative Talk Show Host is Fired

This past weekend, we received news that Craig Henne, a popular talk show host in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, was fired. You may have heard Craig in 6am to 9am time slot on WPBR 1340AM.

Craig has been a huge supporter of the Palm Beach County Tea Party since its inception. He attends our events, talks about our activities on his show, and is even scheduled as a speaker for our upcoming 2012 Tax Day Tea Party at the Wellington Amphitheater on Sunday, April 115th.

In this video, Craig describes how he was directed to speak more positively about Communism and, because he would not obey, was fired. Please watch this video and pass it on to your friends and family. Click here for Craig Henne video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_eSfYes_zU).
http://palmbeachcountyteaparty.org/2012/03/local-conservative-talk-show-host-is-fired/

2. Conservative Talk Show Host Fired Over Homosexuality Remarks (homosexuality subject time discussion)

Conservative Talk Show Host Fired Over Homosexuality Remarks
By Randy Hall and Scott Hogenson
CNSNews.com Staff Writers
July 08, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - Broadcaster Michael Savage was fired from his job as
an MSNBC talk show host Monday for making what the cable channel
called "inappropriate" comments to a homosexual caller.

3. KSFO 560-AM fires conservative talk show host Lee Rodgers for refusing to sugarcoat Islam
(http://www.redstate.com/annbabehuggett/2010/02/26/ksfo-560-am-fires-conservative-talk-show-host-lee-rodgers-for-refusing-to-sugarcoat-islam/)

(http://www.redstate.com/annbabehuggett/2010/02/26/ksfo-560-am-fires-conservative-talk-show-host-lee-rodgers-for-refusing-to-sugarcoat-islam/)
Posted by Ann "Babe" Huggett (http://www.redstate.com/users/annbabehuggett/) (Diary (http://www.redstate.com/annbabehuggett/))
Friday, February 26th at 9:58PM EDT

On Thursday morning, February 18th, with one minute left of his popular San Francisco Bay Area early morning talk show on KSFO 560-AM, veteran radio host and dedicated conservative, Lee Rodgers, received his pink slip without warning for refusing to. “…say nice things about Muslims.”

Rodgers, a 25 year veteran of ABC Radio and a 15 year veteran at KSFO with his highly rated and profitable Lee Rodgers Show, was in the normal process of renegotiating his contract for renewal in July when he was fired last week. In a clear violation of his contract, Rodgers said that his leaving, “…was forced upon me, with no notice.”

4. Jane Fonda, Steinem Want Rush Fired

Sunday, 11 Mar 2012 12:24 PM
By Newsmax Wires

Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem, two icons of the liberal feminist establishment, are taking aim at Rush Limbaugh in a bid to end the career of America’s most popular conservative talk show host.

4b. CNN Lets NOW Say Why They Want Limbaugh Fired -- But Never Held Ed Schultz, Bill Maher to Similar Scrutiny
In the wake of Rush Limbaugh calling a Georgetown law student a "****," CNN hosted the president of the liberal National Organization for Women who called for Limbaugh to be fired, on Monday morning's 10 a.m. hour of Newsroom. They did not give such a voice to supporters of conservative women last year when those women were under attack from liberals.

When liberal radio host Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a **** last May, CNN did not host the president of NOW to call for his termination at MSNBC. In fact, the network covered the outrage over Limbaugh's smear of Sandra Fluke far more than Ed Schultz's rant last May. A Nexis search revealed 35 hits for CNN's coverage of Limbaugh's "****" remark since March 1, versus just four reports on Schultz in the week following his comment.

And amidst the Schultz coverage, CNN's female news anchor Randi Kaye even questioned the virulence of Schultz's smear, saying that there are "mixed interpretations (http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2011/05/26/cnns-randi-kaye-ed-schultzs-rant-there-are-mixed-interpretations-term-sl)" of the word "****."

Last year when comedian Bill Maher used an obscene term to describe (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/19/bill-maher-calls-sarah-palin-dumb-vagina) Sarah Palin, he was a welcome guest four days later on CNN's prime-time show In the Arena to bash the Tea Party. Host Eliot Spitzer even lauded Maher's HBO program as "brilliant (http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/03/23/bill-maher-obama-gops-best-friend-doesnt-blame-them-anything)."

Costello's interview with NOW president Terry O'Neill was largely soft. She even began by telling O'Toole "we rarely hear Rush Limbaugh apologize for anything," and admitted later that "maybe Rush Limbaugh is waging a war against women."

Costello did offer two half-hearted questions in defense of conservatives, arguing that Limbaugh is an "entertainer" and doesn't get politicians elected. But she also teed up O'Toole by flatly asking her "do you still want the guy fired?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The left has control of the media and what stories get reported and how often. Does the media give equal time and outrage to when personal attacks and smears and outright hatred is expressed by representatives on the left? The simple answer is "No they don't". It's like the wink and nod and say, "Well, they're just being over dramatic", or "They're an entertainer", or "That's just one person's opinion".

1. “Rush Should Get Cancer And Die” (http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com/?p=400)
So says a Niagara Falls tabloid owner. The paper, the Niagara Falls reporter (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2B%22Mike+Hudson%22+%2Bniagara), a paper known for it’s left-leaning, apparently printed an editorial (In reality it prints little else) in which the paper’s owner, one Mike Hudson, wrote in a reply to a reader, that “I hope that bastard gets over his addiction and dies from cancer of the balls.”
http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com/?p=400

2. Actor Suggests Liberals Should Kill Sarah Palin
After discussing Kanye West (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1577190/)'s trip to Occupy Wall Street, Jones wrote, "Libyan Rebels kill Gaddafi, if American liberals want respect they better stop listening to Aretha & kill Sarah Palin (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3126606/)(:"

3. Black Panther Party- whites will be exterminated in North America
The radical black Muslim group New Black Panther Party(NBPP) uses paramilitary uniforms and is often photographed in uniform with guns. The group preaches a theology that says “Allah will burn American with fire,” and “whites will be exterminated in North America.”

4. Black Panther Party Intimidating voters

5. Black Panther Party put a bounty on Zimmerman's head

Now, I dare anyone to defend these attacks on the left that go unabated year after year. Let the tables be turned and switch the stories a little bit and have KKK puts bounty on X person's head and look me in they eye and with a straight face and tell me there isn't going to be a hew and cry over this overt racism. Let a group of KKK / White Brotherhood show up at voting areas and intimate black people and look me in the eye and tell me nothing would be done, that none would be arrested and tried for subverting justice and many other charges or that there wouldn't be a race riot in the streets the next day!

Let there be public speaking events in which White Brotherhood calls for the extermination of every Black person, man woman and child, and tell me there would not be congressional hearings, news reports replaying the story over and over and over and showing crime scenes of blacks hurt or killed, and other events of "white supremacy". You know damn well there would be a completely different presentation of such events compared to the liberal hate speech, demands of people being fired for expressing their views etc, because I showed you it above already. I also think it's served a double purpose.

One, the elites pollute minds of impressionable people with one sided stories and constant portraying of conservatives as hateful, bigots, evil, and ridiculing them while excusing actions of those on the left, barely showing any stories depicting the left as such.

Two, eventually the conservatives who make up the majority of the populations will get fed up and if the right fuse is lit, they will get their race war or riots which will bring about open martial law, ending of free speech, internet, gun ownership.... HELLO NWO.

2QWDkUVEFDA

-HJx-LWLcMw

neGbKHyGuHU

H8trCjTatwo

I know these videos are disgusting, but can you imagine the tolerance shown to "allow" this to continue when you know if white groups were doing this there would be outrage expressed in the media. This folks is called a double standard, it is propaganda and it shows typical intolerant behavior of liberals towards non-liberals. Now that they are in control they are no longer liberal in the classic definition because they don't want free speech and open society. They want their views only presented and all others to go away to promote Unity.

WW1h4iKeMZ0

sdv

22nd May 2012, 17:46

NancyV

22nd May 2012, 18:08

sdv, sounds like you have a case of "the truth hurts". What US has posted is true. I don't see why that should offend you. How about you either refute her statements and evidence or ignore her posts if you're not interested in the way she presents the subject. I don't always agree with US but I admire that she is passionate about her beliefs. If I don't like something she posts I ignore it.

Why are you suggesting that she's trying to "shut down anyone who has different political views?" That is an entirely unfounded accusation. First of all she CAN'T shut down anyone's political views and she can't prevent them from posting their opinions. How about you put her on ignore and save yourself a lot of self inflicted stress.

Why are you relentlessly pushing a conservative political agenda here (on not one thread, not two, but I think more than three at last count)? What are you trying to achieve? And why are you trying to shut down anyone who has different political views?

Is there something personal going on in your life that you are trying to work through by dumping hate for liberals here? Between you and a few others who sprinkle their posts with spewed hatred and violence, it's getting a bit much!

It's coming across as a propoganda campaign, sweetie, and this is perhaps not the right place to do that.

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 18:17

I do believe I posted exactly why I have posted these threads of late. The intolerance of some is very evident. Thank you SDV for being a beacon to that fact. You are entitled to share your thoughts, deal with my posts from a factual rather than emotional reactive pov or ignore them. I do believe my posting another view allows for some to see the imbalance.

The fact is both sides have truth as well as some extremists who push an agenda that seeks to stop the other. My recent posts simply illuminate the efforts to silence those whom liberals and the left wish to in order to have their false unity and peace. I wonder if you even read my posts or watch the videos. Maybe you do or maybe you don't. I am pretty sure many who do not like or appreciate my words never really read them in their entirety. Do you have a problem with the truthful and factual videos I posted and if so what is your information to discount what I have shared.

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 18:22

Now having dealt with that, there is an amazing amount of buzz words used by liberals to try to stop others who disagree with them. They talk about those who disagree with them needing to learn tolerance or show tolerance and be non-judgmental, but by their very statements they are intolerant and judging of those who disagree with them. It's natural and it should not be used to stop discussion.

Now, here are again typical buzz words and things said by those who want to shut people up:

Is there something personal going on in your life that you are trying to work through by dumping hate for liberals here? Between you and a few others who sprinkle their posts with spewed hatred and violence, it's getting a bit much!

It's coming across as a propoganda campaign, sweetie, and this is perhaps not the right place to do that.

I am posting specific threads dealing with the tactics of the left, liberals, marxists, communists and if you don't like the words then maybe they should not have employed those labels themselves. Calling me sweetie in your smear against me is rude as well as condescending. Please refrain from terms of endearment when insulting me. Better yet, why not deal with content instead of character assassination of a member whose posts you don't like.

ThePythonicCow

22nd May 2012, 18:33

Why are you relentlessly pushing a conservative political agenda here (on not one thread, not two, but I think more than three at last count)? What are you trying to achieve? And why are you trying to shut down anyone who has different political views?

Is there something personal going on in your life that you are trying to work through by dumping hate for liberals here? Between you and a few others who sprinkle their posts with spewed hatred and violence, it's getting a bit much!

It's coming across as a propoganda campaign, sweetie, and this is perhaps not the right place to do that.

If Unified Serenity is trying to shut down anyone with different views, she's doing a lousy job of it :).

It looks to me as if Unified Serenity holds, and states, strong views on some topics, and on the general mind set of some with opposing views.

It also looks to me as if your reply was a personal attack, and as if this thread risks being a "high maintenance" thread.

The response of the mod team in such cases (personal attacks) can vary ... sometimes nothing, sometimes posts disappear, sometimes threads are closed, sometimes people get sent on little vacations, ... There being apparently no "good" answers, we try various things, depending on Lord knows what.

One can: (A) express ones own viewpoint,
(B) attack a different viewpoint,
(C) attack the generic class of people expressing a viewpoint, or
(D) attack a specific individual.

(A) is "best". (D) is worst and specifically prohibited by the forum guidelines. (C) isn't encouraged either, especially given as how it often leads to (D) ... as in this case it seems :p.

===

P.S. -- On reading NancyV's reply above, (C) may not be encouraged, but sometimes may serve a useful or necessary function.

13th Warrior

22nd May 2012, 18:41

"Intolerance and double standards"

Sigh....yes indeed; and this is not exclusive to either right, left or middle...

nearing

22nd May 2012, 18:41

Have you ever been to a Grateful Dead concert? You may be surprised to know that at least half of those in attendance are 'consevative' right-wingers.

You CANNOT judge ones political views via their image.

That being said, I don't come to PA for politics and I left another site over the division politics made there (and I was a longstanding leader there).

TPTB LOVE that we people divide into right and left camps - it keeps us fighting amongst ourselves and not looking at the real problem which is that it's really all of the people vs the very few in power.

Good luck.

tenacity1

22nd May 2012, 18:47

while I have seen social predjudice on both sides of the political aisle and even only semantical differences between the two groups.... ONline I haven't discussed this because it's too hard to ascertain whom one is talking to. IN real life this that US says is true. Folks on the far right will walk around a homeless guy on their way to their anti abortion rally and on the far left they walk around the same man to get to their "save the tree" rally.I've seen it first hand. We've been programed to be divded and if we are smart we will start looking for the commonalities and respecting the differences.. We allow this divide to continue at our own peril

ceetee9

22nd May 2012, 18:58

We've been programed to be divded and if we are smart we will start looking for the commonalities and respecting the differences.. We allow this divide to continue at our own perilWell said tenacity1--and I mean your whole statement not just the part above that I quoted.

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 19:16

I am not promoting the right, I am giving equal time to the facts abuot the left which do not get shared often. I am pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on. I have never defended the conservative right's leaders, actions, or big business selfishness. I'm just giving equal hypocrisy airing on the left. Regarding people walking by homeless people that is true, but I will also say that statistically it is the "conservative" population who gives far more to charity whether they be rich conservatives or middle class conservatives. Liberals and leftists do not tend to share their wealth as freely as conservatives and libertarians do.

What people do with their money says a hell of a lot more than what they say with their mouths!

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/george_will/)

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You see, that is my point. Saying one thing and doing another is called hypocrisy. The light of truth is a bitch, but it's still truth.

And just so we see even the New York Times recognizes these facts:

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.

K626

22nd May 2012, 19:23

I really don't believe there is a bona fide left and right. In all honesty these are crass labels lazily pasted over two horns of the same debate. How to proceed on this planet.

Peace

K

Dennis Leahy

22nd May 2012, 19:40

US, you didn't reply to my comment in the other thread. It was more of an aside in that thread, but meat and potatoes in this one. So, I'll move it from there to here...

Some of the labels you are attempting to perpetuate (was it Glen Beck that started calling Obama and anyone else he didn't like a "Marxist" or a "socialist"?) are pretty far off-kilter. Could you label a pedophile priest as "loving?" Well, yes, you could, by distorting the meaning of the word 'loving' to mean 'having sex.' Can Obama be called a "socialist?" Well, yes, with the strong qualification that you are talking about tongue-in-cheek socialism for the ultra-wealthy. If Obama was a real socialist, by the normal usage of the word, there would have been bailouts to regular folks, not banking institutions. Marxist? Do you really think Karl Marx would have handed money to banks then stood by while the banks foreclosed on homes? hahahahahaha It really is laughable to associate the word "socialist" with Obama or any modern US president going back many decades. This man has done nothing for common folks, and everything in his power for the corporate elite. (I'm not talking about the broken campaign rhetoric "promises", I'm talking about action.) You would have to talk with a socialist, a member of a "worker's party" to know just how humorous it is to see Obama's name associated with the words 'socialist', 'socialism' and 'Marxism.'

Yesterday while driving, I saw work crews putting up guard rails on the side of the highway. A few days ago, my daughter borrowed a book from the public library. So, there is still a bit of socialism left in the US, but not too much. If the Financial Elite have their way, they will sell all of our roads to private corporations (foreign or domestic), close down all public libraries, change public schools to private... No, I don't think we need to get too worried about a socialist takeover in the USA. Now, if you want to distort the word "socialism", like the power elite Russians did when they subverted the Bolsheviks after the revolution, that's a different story. That was a deliberate distortion of the word. Rather than actually implement socialism, instead they imposed a totalitarian regime and tongue-in-cheek called it 'socialism' - where the few stripped the many and then allocated some of it back to them (which is neither socialism nor Marxism.) Well, that's just a word game.

In the spirit of George Orwell's 1984, many things are named the opposite of what they really are. I loved GW Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" that lowered pollution standards. hehehehehehe How about the "Patriot Act"? hahahahahhaa "No Child Left Behind"! hehehhahahaheheh What do conservatives conserve? (The status quo of big business?)

Do you distinguish between a conservative and a neo-conservative? How about a liberal and a neo-liberal? (I'm convinced that neo-liberal and neo-conservative cannot be graphed on a 2D scalar line, but rather you would need to take the 2D scale and bend it into a loop, connecting the ends at the extreme of neo-liberal and neo-con.) Self-described neo-liberals and neo-cons might use different words, but they have the same actions - case in point was the non-abrupt transition from GWBush to Obama.

How far do we go with the Orwellian naming strategy? Michael Jackson got plenty of airplay to redefine "bad" as "good." A kid on a skateboard might pull off a "sick" move, but he's not ill, he's an accomplished skateboarder.

And to get back to your main point: how do you label someone that is not at the extremes? How do you label a flexible mind that currently falls in a shade of gray on a specific facet of an issue, but that exhibits the flexibility and mental agility to modify their views depending on the sum total of information that is still flowing?

Finally, (before pasting the post from the other thread), is this naming convention, this labeling, serving to exacerbate divisiveness, or does it serve to unify us? If it is a 'shorthand' that was never really even accepted before, in the past, and serves an old paradigm, will you continue to use and defend the technique, or see it for what it does (improperly label shades of gray as black or white), and what it really achieves (divisiveness?)

(Copied from http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?45413-Liberal-Teacher-revealing-intolerance-and-typical-behavor-expected-of-them&p=492918#post492918)
=========================
If labeling people is "old paradigm" and divisive, let's think of another way to discuss the issues without labeling individuals. I do understand it is an attempt to be a shortcut, and possibly, there are people that would have literally every attribute and every belief that might be thought of as falling under one label. It's possible, but not probable. Believing that someone falls under a specific label probably just means we have ignored their complexity (and focused on one or more divisive issues that we feel defines them as falling under that label.)

Most times, when I talk to someone that I have a strong disagreement with, as long as I remember to look for what we have in common, I find something.

We are all really so complex - each of us. We mustn't forget that. Wade Frazier is inviting people to even begin to imagine abundance. It is really one amazing exercise to even try. The reason I mention that is because in the research I did for The Reset Button (which included "imagining", "forecasting behaviors", and attempting to sort of play chess with the people running the current political paradigm), I got to a place where I sort of broke through to the other side of political where it became apolitical. Basically, once we take away the political, divisive, mental constructs and paradigm, we are left with an apolitical system where each individual's uniqueness becomes paramount, not their (typically lip-service) adherence to a specific political ideology (label), or party. So ideologies can't really describe individuals, can they even describe issues?

Even the issues are often complex, and in examining another person's understanding and feelings about a single issue, we will often find ourselves somewhere in the gray zone between complete agreement and complete disagreement (or ability to label a person's viewpoint.)

Breaking everything down to separate issues we increase our chances of finding common ground (even if only agreement on certain facets of issues.) Finding common ground provides the primordial soup for unity. Increasing the level, degree, and complexity of the unity by finding more and more common ground, makes it more and more difficult to split from the unity when differences are discussed. To me, this makes the task of finding common ground much more important than finding our disagreements.

If a transition is taking place within humanity (and I believe that it is), the building blocks of a new and better world and the network connecting individuals are formed when we drop the old, divisive paradigm and seek common ground and unity. Each time we consciously move in this direction, we are training ourselves - learning, growing, and educating ourselves and dissolving the old divisive meme.

Dennis

risveglio

22nd May 2012, 20:23

Labels are definitely a problem. Today's liberals are almost the complete opposite of the classical liberal of the early 20th century.

noprophet

22nd May 2012, 20:38

write4change

22nd May 2012, 21:44

Thank you for posting this thread. It is definitive in explaining how you feel. I learned a long time ago that you cannot reason with intense feeling and beliefs. I don't do acts of futility. I believe you have the right to put all this out as your valid feelings and opinions; I just don't want to deal with them. Therefore, now that I truly understand who you are, I no longer have to aggravate myself with reading and weighing how relevant what you say is to the development of this site.

NancyV

22nd May 2012, 21:53

AlfonZo Rachel looks at the allegations of MSNBC's [liberal] Lawrence O'Donnell regarding Republicans. Zo thinks that O'Donnell is just playing a shell game with words, and that he ignores the fact that Democrats were the defenders of slavery and segregation. Think the Democrats were the leaders of the Suffragette movement? Think again.

Here is what Larry said:

"What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
I'll tell you what they did. They got women the right to vote.
Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberals created social security and lifted
millions of elderly people out of poverty.
Liberals ended segregration.
Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act.
Liberals created Medicare.
Liberals passed the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act.

What did Conservatives do?
They opposed them on every one of those things,
every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet,
"Liberal", as if it were something to be ashamed of,
something dirty, something to run away from,
it won't work, because I will pick up that label
and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Alphonzo Rachel's response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhUaS9JEKo&feature=relmfu

Sierra

22nd May 2012, 22:11

Using a label to define a function is useful in that it allows for the creation of more complex[nested] functioning through its ability to be represented outside the mind and therefore worked with more effectively in a complex-idea-structure[writing, drawing, music, language, anything created].

This is the basis of creation and it sustains the world in every way.

Using a label to define a static[unchanging] principle is useless because there is no such thing as an unchanging principle. There are only complexes made of complexes made of etc. You basically end up with the "straw-man", the unchanging man. [first principles anyone?]

This is the sustaining force of argument which is the channel of destruction which is--illusioninary-illuminary-illumi- ;)

I'm not opposed to either principle. Lets just be clear on what we're doing.

Labels are definitely a problem. Today's liberals are almost the complete opposite of the classical liberal of the early 20th century.

What I described above is much more communicable in mystery teachings. Sure seems like these political parties use a lot of "mystery" symbolism doesn't it?

Almost like if you were to design a system to keep people confused and you came up with the idea to create a society that focuses primarily on descriptive symbols rather than functional symbols. Descriptive symbols becoming more inaccurate as the functional ideas they are composed of evolve and change.

I grew up in a Republican household. My first political memory is that of a fund raising held at our house for Eisenhower. The two main tenets that made my family "Republican" were that:
1) Republicans are fiscally responsible. All debt increases under Democrats.
2) All wars are started by Democrats.

So as those two values fell by the wayside in the 60's I became a Democrat.

Do you notice? Complete reversal of values between two polarized positions. Now who would be responsible for that? Not the Democrats or Republicans. In fact, a Democrat of the deep south has NOTHING in common with a Democrat of the west. Nothing. One is deeply conservative, heavily into the military paradigm, and the other is liberal bleeding heart.

As Eisenhower said, beware the industrial-military complex. He meant TPTB.

Follow the money, who benefits from polarization between two shallow, jingoistic, 2D positions that have nothing to do with the real needs and wants of the people? What values fall by the wayside when we allow ourselves to focus on divisiveness, blame, shame and the silliest position of all, "It's (take your pick) their (take your pick) fault (take your pick).". Isn't it foolish to STILL focus on where TPTB WANT us to focus? Things change where there is a massive upswell (usually led by the liberal religious figures of the day) of public dissent to (14 hour work days, six days a week for little children, slavery, forced marriage, no votes for women etc.) Sometimes it takes a war, sometimes it happens at the ballot box.

Speaking of real needs and wants, seems to be a pretty global desire. Freedom. Speaking of real needs and wants, you *know* the U.S. conservatives have taken away all our rights under the Bushies using fear porn? No more habeas corpus anymore you know ... they can pick you up, throw you into jail (or FEMA camp), and not.tell.anyone.where.you.are and what you are accused of. And we all have seen the YouTube evidence of the mounting violence of the conservative establishment against those helpless in their power. (Yes, in general, the military and the civil military organizations, police, sheriffs etc. are made up of the conservative.)

Labels are blinding. They are polarizing. We are human, we have universal wants and desires and they are not being met by TPTB. Republicans are not the culprits, neither are Democrats. Both are subsets of humans, victims of believing TPTB designed polarities. Stupid, shallow, ignorant, deceptive, and foolish polarities.

Sierra

K626

22nd May 2012, 22:30

Dialectical materialism. Two tribes. Communism and Capitalism funded at the same time etc....

Peace

K

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 22:57

The Arthen

22nd May 2012, 23:16

I can very much understand US' frustration in dealing with the "Left" label.

I didn't even grow up under either "side", and I can STILL relate to her frustration when trying to talk sense to the American "Left" (obviously the "Right" is also a big problem).

Here's a basic structure of how I understand it:

1. Left and Right are labels. Got it. I know.

2. However, we need to reach into the Matrix and shake as many as we possibly can out of their trances.

3. In this respect, I regretfully point out that alot of the truly nice "Right" can actually understand what I'm trying to do, except establishment "Right".

4. I encounter the most frustration with the "Left", simply because they often play the "You Can't Pin Anything On Me, Because I'm Compassionate By Default" disposition, and anything you try to warn them about, they ASSUME you're "pushing an agenda".

This is where I think we're still stuck at. It's one thing to see ourselves transcending labels - but when it comes to reaching out and pulling as many out of the Matrix as we can, we'll STILL have to deal with sub-level paradigms.

Most of my frustration still comes from dealing with the Matrix's "Left" more so than the "Right", because they encompass many self-digging graveholes in their thought patterns.

1. - Because I don't believe in religion, that means I'VE GOT IT ALL RIGHT!

2. - Because I think of myself as compassionate, I'VE GOT IT ALL RIGHT!

3. - Because of the 2 of the above, ANYONE who opposes me IS JUST PUSHING A RIGHT AGENDA!

Sigh.

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

And the worse part is - everybody seems to think for now, "Oh, well, that may be frustrating, but it can't be as bad as warmongers".

Really? :)

What goes around - comes around.

Neglect any detail now, especially with the kind of critical thinking integrity that many on the "Left" are still yet to possess - it'll snowball into a MUCH bigger problem later.

Eventually you'll have "level 1 integrity" pple assuming stuff that "level 3 integrity" people say, you'll have "level 2 integrity" assuming that "level 5 integrity" people are "pushing an agenda" because "level 5 integrities" know exactly how "level 2 integrities" are still stuck in a limited framework, and so on and so forth, and so on, and so forth.

Then again, yes. Just keep in mind we're interacting with souls stuck in the Matrix.
Labels mean nothing.

Praxis

22nd May 2012, 23:25

Unified Serenity

22nd May 2012, 23:33

The Arthen

22nd May 2012, 23:36

Unified serenity: Care about love, compassion and empathy. If you buy in to the left right idea then you are missing the point. The media, left, right, everything is all controlled by the same group(s). Dont vote conservative, vote peace. Dont vote liberal, vote PEACE. If you think that the right is better than the left, then it is your who lacks critical thinking skills. If you think the left is better than the right, then you lack critical thinking skills. This thread is just sad.

I totally understand you. We should strive for love, compassion and empathy nonetheless.

And despite all that - I still think you're missing the point. Such virtues are often used as excuses for non-involvement as well, as much as I know those are true virtues.

Then again, we can't force everybody to be "great at arguments" to pull souls out of the matrix. The only thing I ask is - just please don't despise those who go back in.

sygh

22nd May 2012, 23:59

Unified Serenity... I am highly, highly affected by the information you shared. You are right on target. Division gets us NO-WHERE fast. If we have learned nothing about hatred and killing over the last 11 years, then honestly, there isn't much hope. I want this war to END. It should have ended before it ever began!!!!

Is this what we are to expect, hear, in the U.S. until election day? Intollerance and hatred? Far right, far left? Oh brother. As if the problems the world faces can be fixed by genocide. I'd like to hear this guy explain that to every living species on the planet. What should we really be concentrating on? What should we REALLY be concentrating on? It's not about race, Soilent Green is PEOPLE. We need to clean up our act as a species and be responsible for the life we bring into this world because we have far outgrown our ecological niche. Some people will say we haven't but if we are going to choose to live surounded by green instead of piled on top of one another in cities, we better face some realities. That means all people.

One thing I did notice though... these are dated. This occurred after Katrina and in 2008 at the poles. I don't think we should be reaching back to pull this crap up and make it news in 2012. Its sorta in context. Remember how Bush won the first time?

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 00:44

Hi Sygh,

He says stuff all the time. He said some pretty disgusting stuff recently. The BPP put a bounty on Zimmerman's head! The BPP intimidated voters, the case was already in court and the Eric Holder Justice Dept. dropped the case. The message is clear to the BPP. My greatest concern is finding a pair of white "All American" high school kids lynched by them. It would start massive problems if they went that far. You can read this article on the Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-field-marshal-whites-should-be-thankful-were-not-hanging-crackers-by-nooses-yet-yet-yet/

Here is the fact, this guy says a lot of alarming things and some people love it. There are programs on TV about the KKK and Government oppression in the form of movies like V for Vendetta and documentaries. Race baiting is happening and the major media is not reporting this sort of talk, but the black community is well aware of these black speakers and the BPP (black panther party). Now, we are going to start seeing more stories about KKK meetings, I guarantee it. If you are going to pick sides or follow one group or antoher group, be sure you know what they support and if there is an agenda behind them. A small movement can turn into a mighty one pretty easily with the right catalyst, and I see a lot of propaganda and media manipulation going on.

I want to make it very clear that these extreme speakers do not represent a vast number, but it does not take a great number to start conflict. I have a lot of black friends and acquaintances who have no problems with whites, blacks, Hispanics or any race. They want peace and prosperity. Should some conflict start though, many can become polarized when family or friends get hurt. It's probably more important to find people on both "sides" speaking sense, peace, and brotherhood. We are so much stronger than the elites, but they are pulling some serious emotional chains right now.

Dennis Leahy

23rd May 2012, 01:00

Just because I recognize group think and can talk about issues on the right and left and choose to use a general term does not mean I am stuck in any paradigm. It's amazing that you all would rather diagnose me, ridicule me though semi cleverly aka Carmody, switch the issues around etc rather than talk about double standards and how it affects ever coming to balance. As long as you have this happening in society we will never come together, but you all act like it doesn't exist.

I feel like i am standing in my elementary school yard with you detractors and hearing "I know you are but what am I" again.
Really? I'm slow with composition, and I spent some time trying to answer without getting reactionary.

I glossed over your points... "The MSM is biased towards the liberal left." That's not true. The MSM is extremely dominated by neocons on the radio and neoliberals on TV. I cannot handle listening to either, and so I don't.

Speaking of labels, do you know what neoliberals are? Do you realize they are war mongers and apologists for the corporate/fascist takeover of the USA - just exactly the same actions as the neocons (who use different words to justify the same actions?)

When most people bring up these labels, they typically portray these labels as something that could be glued to a number line, from -10 to 0 to 10 (and make the one they don't like the -10 end of the scale.) I think a better depiction to at least lift the conversation a few notches would be to see the nuimber line as a 3-D hologram, and see each label as a semi-transparent blobby spherical shape that intersects the labels on either side of it. Do you see what I'm getting at? Only cartoon characters, like Rush Limbaugh, can occupy a flat, small, non-intersecting label. Real people are more complex that that.

What label describes you accurately? Have you already made up your mind that this label will describe you in 2 years or 5 years or 10 years? I'm not talking about specific human attributes you ascribe to the label, I'm asking if you already know that your own label fits and always will.

The "conservative" (your label) talk show hosts that were fired, perhaps they were fired because they were divisive and alienating and obnoxious? Or perhaps they were fired because they were not divisive and alienating and obnoxious enough? Or maybe they had an affair with the station owner's daughter, or son, or pet? We have no idea why they were fired. We have no idea what these people's working relationships are. The best music director I ever heard in all my travels around the US got fired in a petty power-play by someone who outranked him, and the station instantly went from being the best I ever heard to just flat awful.

Even though I don't watch TV, I saw on FarceBook this past year that Keith Olberman (sp?) was fired. So, maybe people with other labels get fired too?

I'm getting the sense that you're not interested in going deeper into the issues than the surface stuff. Honestly, your latest flurry of posts left me feeling like you were actually trying to sabotage your conversational relationship with as many people as possible. I guess abortion, the 2nd amendment, and immigration will be the next topics? I keep trying to draw you back in, to find the common ground we all have rather than the Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh approach of being as divisive as possible. Are you trying to push us away? You have drawn your line in the sand, I guess. I'm not sure why you needed to do it, and why it is more interesting to you to find divisive topics and memes and stay on the surface level of them, but I guess I'll step out and just wish you well.

Dennis

Midnight

23rd May 2012, 01:20

This kind of divisive thread is not why I visit this site.

Fortunately there are other more worthy threads here, which I will be visiting right after I type this sentence.

Lifebringer

23rd May 2012, 01:23

Duh, in the last 3 years We have seen what most minorities go through. And yes, they still do go "coon hunting." Ask the Zimmerman dispatcher.

Cartomancer

23rd May 2012, 01:25

I'm a stone cold liberal. These people using the United States of America Constitution for toilet paper are making me more conservative. They are a bunch of lying pieces of effluvia and they have managed to co-opt both sides. We need to get rid of these scum and then settle our differences in a civil manner.

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 01:46

Here's a new story at the Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/kkk-flyer-invites-nc-community-to-white-people-only-cross-burning/) about KKK meetings:

KKK Flyer Invites NC Community to ‘White People Only’ Cross Burning Event

Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:35am by Billy Hallowell

Troubling pamphlets inviting people to a cross-burning event in Reidsville, North Carolina, has led to a police investigation. According to Police Chief Edd Hunt, the flyers, which advertises a cryptic Ku Klux Klan (KKK) event for “white people only,” came to light after officers received phone calls from concerned recipients.
The event advertisement comes just two weeks after the KKK held a protest in Eden, a nearby city. While police aren’t yet sure (http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/21/kkk-invites-north-carolina-town-to-white-people-only-cross-burning/) if the alleged event promotion is connected to the previous protest, detectives are currently looking into the matter.

“Join us, the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, for a rally and cross lighting, Saturday, May 26, Harmony, North Carolina,” the flier proclaims (http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/05/21/kkk-invites-north-carolina-town-to-white-people-only-cross-burning/). “Free Admition (sic)-White People Only. No alcohol, drugs, fighting, glass bottles or weapons. Free on site camping-all major motels in area. Souvenirs. Vendors. Food and beverages for Sale. Cross lighting at dusk-a white unity event. Live country band. Security provided by LWK.”

Now, I don't care for the KKK, but as long as they are not hurting people, calling for killing people then I don't care if they want to legally protest, camp out, and sing Kum Ba Yah all night long. But I do notice one thing about this story that we have yet to see about the BPP calling offering a bounty for Zimmerman's head, and that is the police are already investigating a lot of bigoted white people who as far as I can tell haven't done anything wrong besides hurting people's feelings. Little kids better not pretend to be ghosts this Halloween because they will piss off some Black Liberation Theology person or a member of the BPP. This is the double standard I am talking about. I am telling you right now, that the average person who hears this stuff is affected and they can be riled up on either side. Where are the black ministers coming out denouncing this behavior of the BPP? I'm sure we will have lots of people denouncing this KKK group. It will be all over TV and on talk radio. I bet few people in the white community know that the BPP wants them dead... all of them.

Do you think the KKK would not be under indictment right now if they had a picture of a little white boy on a board offering a bounty for X person "Dead or Alive"?

Double standard folks................. http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/8a/73/8a734aa1538050e75c57fe9c892b7319.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Duh, in the last 3 years We have seen what most minorities go through. And yes, they still do go "coon hunting." Ask the Zimmerman dispatcher.

Are you actually saying you think Zimmerman killed Martin for no reason? That there is no evidence supporting the fact that Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman and that Zimmerman shot him at close range in fear of his life? Is that what you are saying?

Fred Steeves

23rd May 2012, 01:47

It's amazing that you all would rather diagnose me, ridicule me though semi cleverly aka Carmody, switch the issues around etc rather than talk about double standards and how it affects ever coming to balance.

Serenity, please stop this, I'm just sayin from personal experience. Sometimes we just have to call it a day my old friend.

Cheers,
Fred

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 01:50

I don't want to go into details, but few whites murdered by blacks get the news coverage that Martin got when Zimmerman shot him in what appears to be self defense. I will post some terrible facts if needed, but it's a definite double standard in reporting of heinous black on white crimes vs. any incidence regarding white on black crimes.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

It's amazing that you all would rather diagnose me, ridicule me though semi cleverly aka Carmody, switch the issues around etc rather than talk about double standards and how it affects ever coming to balance.

Serenity, please stop this, I'm just sayin from personal experience. Sometimes we just have to call it a day my old friend.

Cheers,
Fred

Why Fred? Is it because the facts and truths I am sharing are upsetting people who don't want to hear cold hard facts? Yes, truth is painful. Maybe I should stop for the night Fred, some people seem to be unable to not emotionally vent vs. intelligently examine the facts.

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 01:54

I'm not sure why you needed to do it, and why it is more interesting to you to find divisive topics and memes and stay on the surface level of them, but I guess I'll step out and just wish you well.

Dennis

Again, focusing on the "label" issue. So I guess you admit to double standards and intolerance demonstrated by those who tend to vote for Obama and other Democrats? See it' much easier to say liberals. It seems no one wants to admit to some various obvious facts but would rather beat a label to death.

Recognizing what divides is the first step to filling the breach. People act like this stuff does not go on, and yet ignoring it will not fix the problems.

tenacity1

23rd May 2012, 04:15

Labels limit understanding Archaic Earth Mother

or Google Archaic Earth Mothers pages... the fecking Beatles were RIGHT "all you need is love" had we stuck with peace activism we'd not been in this mess. However J edgar certainly used labels to limit us and infiltrate drugs into the movement. "Free love nickel beer should have been freee berr /nickel love.. The love we are speaking of is unconditional for all humans.. Labels limit that love. Not to say I don't have my foibles.. I can't stand child molesters for instance.. However I also know how they came to be that way. Compassion for others doesn't have to be an endorsement of bad behavior.. We are human beings not human doings.. you either see the LIGHT of the Creator in all people or you don't.. the divide is punctuated by predjudice.

13th Warrior

23rd May 2012, 14:46

Recognizing what divides is the first step to filling the breach. People act like this stuff does not go on, and yet ignoring it will not fix the problems.

What i see being ignored here, in this thread is any sort of balance concerning the issues at hand.

"Unified Serenity"(a blatant misnomer) are you suggesting that only the liberal media is guilty of intolerance and double standards?

It would appear that you've bought into one of the many narratives being marketed/sold by the Controlled media who's ultimate goal is to stir up civil unrest (demoralize/destabilize) in which they hope to foment a violent revolution. While we are fighting with ourselves they tighten the noose around our necks and plunge us deeper into tyranny...

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.

But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.

Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."

v_leY_LgOuQ

I see you've mentioned the movie "V for Vendetta".

The talk show host may have well just said it was the "Liberals" that caused all the problems, right?

8kx_vsbpfRU

Carmody

23rd May 2012, 17:06

Nothing is in dispute, in my mind, is it the place that such things are launched from, in one's mind and how this is laid out to people, as a product of the given person's "mind". How such is projected at the world, and in the specific, how such is projected onto the forum.

We all have aspects that are angry and negative, and we all struggle with them.

But to not launch it into or on the forum, with such a negative cast, without balance.

This is an aspect that causes any attempted message to get lost.

What I was trying to tell RMorgan, was that his vitriol was noted and I would like to, at that point, henceforth , if finding any posts by him filled with said vitriol, report those posts and illustrate his lack of balance to him.

But at the same time, it is his responsibility to police himself. And if he can't do it himself, then I might go forth and act upon the stated idea of constantly reporting any posts of that nature, of his. Specifically of the type that set me off. But I can't waste my time chasing that sort of thing down. And neither can the moderators, as constant diaper changing will wear them out.

Their best bet, after a while, would be to dismiss him from the premises. It is that simple. No moderators, no forum. and thus to have a forum, moderators have to dismiss the presence of those who spit vitriol. It is an eventual position that must be taken and acted upon. and there is no disputing that, if one spends a few minutes thinking clearly.

And you, dear serenity, please learn to police yourself. :) This (forum) should not be some polar reflective opposite of Bill O'reiley and his ilk (this forum) where we are to post 'rants' (and I really DO mean rant). That is specifically laid out in the reasons for the forum's existence. Reasoned debate, devoid of the any attacking kind of passion. And that no attempt to use words, and phrasing... to 'sneak it by' was to be allowed -either.

I mean, that's the GLP forum, like some sort of angry mosh pit where people hit each other over the head with, well, just simple angry drivel which.... solves nothing. Excepting that they have vented their spleen and damaged themselves and others in the process.

basically, when overheated on a subject, try not to dump (the heat) it here.

Try Waiting a day, gain some perspective... and if not, keep it at home or elsewhere... until some form of non-emotional reason is found, so it can then be communicated effectively, and thus BE EFFECTIVE.

this sort of thing is an age old technique that has aided human communication for about as long as we have been communicating with one another. First response is almost always emotional. Then reason comes. we have to figure out how to get reason to come--first. To put the emotions in the back seat, or the trunk of the car, or even the trailer behind the car.

But out of the drivers seat, where it is with most people. This is, in most cases... not noticed until the passionate subject comes along. Then it is really obvious what is in charge.

I mean, think about it United. We are now four threads deep in dealing with these issues.... over the past few days. :)

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 17:14

Carmody et al, if you want to present your views about those aspects in politics or media which speak on a different area than I have highlighted be my guest. I have not ranted. I have shared information that is very factual and none of you deal with the Topic of the thread. You want to tear apart the messenger and not deal with the message. So now I am being accused of starting too many threads? I did not know I was limited in the things I posted. Please point out in the rules where I am limited in posting issues? It's not like I'm just copying and pasting stories. I give my views along with evidence gleaned from various sources. Admit it, you just don't like the topic.

Carmody

23rd May 2012, 17:23

Khaleesi

23rd May 2012, 18:11

Don't like the topic?

I see you are still not getting the point.

Which is at the heart of the problem.

I see you aren't getting the point. You aren't willing to post a counter argument to Serenity's thread. Instead, you attack her and RMorgan, accusing them of instigating and threatening to stalk RMorgan. You are condescending, using the phrase "dear Serenity" and use words like 'drivel'. It is apparent you do not like the subject by the very fact that you present no evidence to counter Serenity's evidence. You 'tell' her to police herself and speak of a need for non-emotional reason, all while espousing your 'passion'. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

13th Warrior

23rd May 2012, 18:29

Unified Serenity,

It's ironic that you use the lying/manipulative media as your "proof" that liberals are intolerant and have a double standard. It's akin to someone quoting the bible as proof to support the book.

You brought up the Trayvon Martin case; the media has skewed the facts of this case on all sides in an effort to provoke racial division and foment anger. George Zimmerman was portrayed as a white person when in fact he is Hispanic; Trayvon Martin was portrayed as child when in fact he was 6 foot 3 inches and 170 lbs.

The facts as best can be discerned without media bias are this:

George Zimmerman call 911 to report a suspicious person
The 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue the suspect
Zimmerman and Trayvon have an altercation in which Trayvon gets shot and killed

My take on the situation is this: Zimmerman put himself into the situation where he felt deadly force was warranted. He perused Trayvon and instigated the confrontation. Florida has a stand your ground law but, who in this case was standing their ground; the pursuer George Zimmerman or the pursued Trayvon Martin. I think that murder in the 2nd degree is also the wrong charge; in my opinion, manslaughter is the more appropriate charge.

Let's talk about the label "Liberal" and how it is used to describe persons by the media.

A liberal is someone who supports president Obama and his policies.

One of the main talking points is "Obama Care" and the word socialism is often thrown about; yet, on the other hand you hear about how great a president Ronald Reagen was but, no mention of socialism and his prescription drug program. You also have the republican supported presidential candidate Mitt Romney who's advisers helped draft the "Obama Care" bill. So, you're going to elect a republican candidate because "Obama Care" needs to be repealed yet, your candidate has supported it from the beginning.

Liberals support planned parenthood but, are anti war...ok i get that one but, Right wingers are pro life and pro war. That's a double standard all around.

Liberals are socialists and welfare is a socialist program but, when tax breaks are given to corporations (under the guise of job creation) it's capitalism and free markets.

I could go on but, it should be apparent to most that there is intolerance and double standards coming from both sides of the argument.

Unified Serenity, you seem to feel you have the higher ground...i'm sorry to say no you don't.

Can't you see what the end game is?

They are using a military tactic on you and it's working. This tactic is; when you want to go to war with somebody you have to make them your enemy. Once the enemy is identified/identifiable your army will destroy them with impudence.

You need only look at the history of war and it's propaganda machine.

Who is the new enemy? Liberals

Unified Serenity, you may not consider yourself a Liberal but, what if someone else does???

risveglio

23rd May 2012, 18:46

See labels again. From my understanding of the liberal and conservative. No real liberal would support Obama and no real conservative would support Mitt Romney. I only have one real "liberal" that I know that plans to support Obama, the rest are either not voting or planning to vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Same with most of my "conservative" friends. The only ones I know that are voting for Obama or Romney usually give me the less of two evils speech.

gigha

23rd May 2012, 19:02

You guys kill me. Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Marxist,
I have a source that has told me "this"
"The Moon is Flat" :laser:

peace and love gigha

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 19:12

Unified Serenity,

What no childish comment about my name and what you think I believe in? Did you evolve suddenly?

It's ironic that you use the lying/manipulative media as your "proof" that liberals are intolerant and have a double standard. It's akin to someone quoting the bible as proof to support the book.

You brought up the Trayvon Martin case; the media has skewed the facts of this case on all sides in an effort to provoke racial division and foment anger. George Zimmerman was portrayed as a white person when in fact he is Hispanic; Trayvon Martin was portrayed as child when in fact he was 6 foot 3 inches and 170 lbs.

The facts as best can be discerned without media bias are this:

George Zimmerman call 911 to report a suspicious person
The 911 operator told Zimmerman not to pursue the suspect
Zimmerman and Trayvon have an altercation in which Trayvon gets shot and killed

The liberal media wants to portray a poor defenseless child (photos from when he was a kid) being attacked by a white man. That is the double standard, thanks for proving my point. I won't debate the Martin case in this thread, start a new one if you want to, but I think your take is wrong.

Let's talk about the label "Liberal" and how it is used to describe persons by the media.

A liberal is someone who supports president Obama and his policies.

One of the main talking points is "Obama Care" and the word socialism is often thrown about; yet, on the other hand you hear about how great a president Ronald Reagen was but, no mention of socialism and his prescription drug program. You also have the republican supported presidential candidate Mitt Romney who's advisers helped draft the "Obama Care" bill. So, you're going to elect a republican candidate because "Obama Care" needs to be repealed yet, your candidate has supported it from the beginning.

That was socialistic of Reagan to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It was George W. Bush who signed the MMA in 2003 when he went on a spending spree that was very liberal. Again, just another Rino in action. You won't have me argue otherwise. I also believe if you look back at the stories that he was accused of enacting such an act was against his supposed conservative values.

Why do you think Romney is my candidate? I am not a Republican oh great Carnak. Romney is an elite puppet and isn't even eligible to be the President just as Obama isn't eligible.

Liberals support planned parenthood but, are anti war...ok i get that one but, Right wingers are pro life and pro war. That's a double standard all around.

I never said it wasn't, and therefore I do not see your point. By the way, if liberals are so anti-war why is Obama planning new wars in Iran and on the American people via NDAA legislation that is already being dismissed by the courts? Liberals are only anti-war when they are not in charge and want to demonize conservatives. Of course, I don't like any of our recent wars and find there is no real just cause in them. There is a definite dichotomy in logic for anti-life crowd being against the dealth penalty and the Pro-life crowd being for the death penalty except in the idea of justice. The death penalty would not bother me if there was an absolute assurance of who was guilty, ie. father walked in and saw the criminal murding his child, wife, etc.. As it is now, it's cheaper to lock em up and throw the key away which suits me fine.

Liberals are socialists and welfare is a socialist program but, when tax breaks are given to corporations (under the guise of job creation) it's capitalism and free markets.

That is certainly accurate. I call it corporate welfare. I now understand why our founders hated corporations and why when they were allowed again it opened the door for a lot of crime. True constitutionalists such as myself do not believe in any welfare provided by the Federal Government. I believe those issues should be left to every state to decide and manage. I do believe it's fair to say those on the "right" the RINOs are just as much socialists as liberals. They pretend to be conservative. We could certainly make posts on this thread listing the hypocrits on the Right who betray themselves by supporting corporate welfare.

I could go on but, it should be apparent to most that there is intolerance and double standards coming from both sides of the argument.

There is evidence of this hypocrisy on the right, but my post was dealing with media and intolerance and the double standard towards information and how it's presented. It's been proven over and over by the sheer number of stories that paint liberals in a positive light vs. conservatives in a bad unelightened, stingy, evil light. There is an agenda to demonize conservative opinion and views in the MSM. Talk radio while it's successful for the conservatives is not MSM. You don't have Rush Limbaugh sound bites interrupting your country and western, hip hop, pop music stations every 15 minutes. When you watch TV you do have such sound bites and they are effective propaganda tools.

Unified Serenity, you seem to feel you have the higher ground...i'm sorry to say no you don't.

How do you know what I seem to feel? You have zero idea of what most of my views are which is evident from this post I am responding to. I do think I have a point and it's been made by my posts. Again, people want to debate me, my thoughts, my feelings, my motives, my agenda, but they sure as hell don't want to deal with the Topic, though your points were a start in this thread.

Can't you see what he end game is?

I see what the end game is very clearly, and just because I point out facts does not mean I am not aware of the divide and conquer routine. I am also aware from participating on PA since 2009 that some here love to mock, ridicule, deride anything conservative and traditional values many here do hold. They have no problem making their insipid, condescending, infantile remarks about conservative issues, topics, and members. I see a spade and I'm calling a spade a spade. Again, the truth hurts. I am in a way mirroring some of this behavior. You all don't like some of the topics I have posted or my supposed "tone" and "agenda". Don't you see that you all do the same things in many ways and yet rarely are those who do so called on it. So, I figured since I don't care for some topics and threads and I do care about others that I will post those things as factually as possible. Again, read back on the negative responses and note how almost none deal with the topic of the thread. It's only a negative thread because of those who dislike the topic and have turned to accusations and such.

They are using a military tactic on you and it's working.

No it's not working, I'm just giving equal exposure to all sides of the gambit.

This tactic is; when you want to go to war with somebody you have to make them your enemy. Once the enemy is identified/identifiable your army will destroy them with impudence.

The facts remain that some here are very liberal, disseminate such views regularly when topics allow, and the vitriole at which they hunt down the evil conservative is very plain to see. My point is to recognize the truth, stop the double standards, adn treat everyone fairly and with respect. Then again, tolerance only belongs as a warcry for liberals.

Who is the new enemy? Liberals

No, they are a very ancient enemy who would steal people's freedom, prosperity, and lives in support of their view of how equitable the world should be despite one's contributions to it. They are stingy, uncharitable, and mean spirited on the whole and they have no problem taking from others by means of political theivery while they hide their money and make backroom deals. The RINOs are without honor and the two groups together are the damnation of America and the world. In fact, it's pretty funny to call the liberals today because liberal should mean open to new things, but the fact is that now they have taken over the Federal Government, Education, Media, Banking that they don't want any change. They have to just convince the people through some terrible thing that will happen that we need to give up even more freedom and property for pretend security which they promise to provide. My my, we do need a nanny state telling us what to eat, what to think, what to wear, drive, grow, and build etc..

Unified Serenity, you may not consider yourself a Liberal but, what if someone else does???

I say show me the proof I am a liberal. Lies said about me do not hurt my feelings. I know they are not true. I do have to somewhat defend myself only because many are so lazy in their thinking today that if you do not set the record straight then what some wish to say about you others believe unless offered another viewpoint. That is what this is all about. Present your facts and viewpoints and a true discussion will follow. Continue to bash the messenger and there is zero growth.

It also seems that you may support many liberal thought systems by your need to try to balance this thread by bringing up Republican hypocritical actions. I can understand why the things I have revealed about the liberals in media and elsewhere bothers you. The truth does not bother me. I am not the least bit bothered by revealing facts about dirty Republicans, and since you felt the need to bring them up on a less than flattering way, you also see a problem with socialism. For that I am greatful.

13th Warrior

23rd May 2012, 19:35

What no childish comment about my name and what you think I believe in? Did you evolve suddenly?

It's your candor that bears out the irony of your chosen screen name.

I say show me the proof I am a liberal

I am not calling you a liberal, i'm only posing the question for your consideration.

I am not the least bit bothered by revealing facts about dirty Republicans, and since you felt the need to bring them up on a less than flattering way, you also see a problem with socialism.

It's true that i'd have more respect for conservatives if they acted conservative.

I can understand why the things I have revealed about the liberals in media and elsewhere bothers you.

I am not bothered by it; that should have been more clear by my statements.

Sierra

23rd May 2012, 20:23

So, if I am to understand you all, you don't actually disagree with the points I am making, just the use of the word liberal to talk about a group that usually votes Democrat and belong to the American Communist society or wish they could. I'm really glad to know that none of the facts I have presented are in dispute, just the word liberal or a "label" no matter that all media uses terms ie. labels to inform the viewer of basic facts about a group in their story. So, we can all realize that my post stands with it 's points, but it's the word choice to use "liberal".

I find you seriously deluded here. It is your anger, divisiveness, and acceptance of the polarity at the very lowest level of the lie I find disturbing. Especially since you should know better, having hung out on Avalon for awhile. You really should KNOW this is the work of TPTB, not "liberals" or "conservatives".

This is a not a political war, but spiritual, and it is fought on a battlefield of one, on the inner landscape, alone with the self.

Sierra

Unified Serenity

23rd May 2012, 20:44

I find your statement rather delusional in that you don't seem to understand people play a part in the game and they fall into various camps of thought. There is a very real agenda taking place in MSM. You can think all you want about me. I see very similar intolerant behavior double standard attitudes among some members here in their defending of open liars, proven frauds, and doing so based on how someone makes them feel. Of course many people do so unknowingly when they are part of these groups. I never see you or anyone else who has problems with my posts taking on others who are negative about other groups.

The fact is we live in a very real world and games are played in it. The "it's a spiritual problem not a political one" is rather naive. Everything we do is spiritual. The fact is we are being held hostage by a powerful MSM that tends to support the more liberal viewpoints, denies coverage of things they do not like, and twists things that appear to support what they do want to push as an agenda. It's a double standard, and that is spiritual as well. It's a lie told over and over until people can't remember that there was another side some time ago. Now, if someone tries to reveal these things they are lambasted as negative, disturbing the energy, blah blah blah.

Avalon is not immune just because we talk about many bad things done by leaders around the world. There are some pretty stuck people here as well, and you can point the finger all you want to at me, but I think the fact is truth is truth, and again, another post not dealing with the topic of the thread. I'm getting rather used to it though.

I find you seriously deluded here. It is your anger, divisiveness, and acceptance of the polarity at the very lowest level of the lie I find disturbing. Especially since you should know better, having hung out on Avalon for awhile. You really should KNOW this is the work of TPTB, not "liberals" or "conservatives".

This is a not a political war, but spiritual, and it is fought on a battlefield of one, on the inner landscape, alone with the self.

Sierra

13th Warrior

23rd May 2012, 20:48

qfrvlFQStkg

...in the end it's only round and round....

Haven't you hear it's a battle of words the poster bearer cried....

Seikou-Kishi

23rd May 2012, 21:16

Liberal and Conservative are practically meaningless. People who say they are liberal disdain those who do not share their supposedly liberal values, while people who say they are conservative disdain those who do not share their supposedly conservative values. They're functionally identical, and tools of division. The idea that "a conservative is so stupid as to think this" or "a liberal is so stupid as to think that" are usually general cases and nearly always caricatures designed to enforce the lines of division.

gigha

23rd May 2012, 21:29

Blah Blah Blah.... :wizard:

OFGgbT_VasI

peace and love gigha

ThePythonicCow

24th May 2012, 00:31

So now I am being accused of starting too many threads? I did not know I was limited in the things I posted. Please point out in the rules where I am limited in posting issues?
No ... you weren't accused of starting too many threads. I do believe you're presenting a paper tiger there.

ThePythonicCow

24th May 2012, 01:22

This thread is a mess ... one or members should be grateful that I don't feel like dissecting it to discern who started the blaming, attacking, denials, ... or who is more responsible for such ... it's probably saving some one or more members from a little forum "vacation".

This thread is hereby closed.

===

P.S. -- I subsequently couldn't resist poking through this mess, and ended up sending one member on a week's vacation.

We ask forum members to treat each other with a modicum of respect.