.
Political policies, positions and personalities can be complex and confusing. There's often too much bad information and not enough good information to ever feel you are informed enough to make a responsible choice.
But I've finally figured out away to eliminate all the extraneous information, and get to the core of the matter. I've winnowed it down to this:
If a policy or position advances (or preserves) Individual Liberty I support it.
If it doesn't, I don't.
Doesn't matter how shiny it is. Or how popular. Or how well-spoken.
And if you keep it in mind, most* complex issues get very simple, very fast.
The Gunslinger
*Obviously some issues won't fit neatly into this formula. And some that do will require compromise for the legitimate "greater good". But that's why we have big brains...to tell the difference.
.
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
Actually,THAT ("individual liberty..")is the way I frame debates with "sensitive" Lib friends,not insulting them with "libtards"-type admonishments,which doesn't further the discussion in a civilized manner,but dissolves into "Bushhitler"-type tantrums.I usually put forth the following:"You talk about Government evils,conspiracies,Big Brother,etc.,but you're supporting a candidate advocating increased Gov't control.Why?" Then they either call me a Nazi (WTF?); or,if they are TRULY of a sympathetic disposition toward people as individuals,not members of competing tribes,they respond with "But I want to help people".I say "Do it yourself,every day,one-on-one".What a concept!
ReplyDeleteIt also pays to remind them that a BIG POWERFUL CENTRAL government will often be headed by a dreaded Republican.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to make sure that any future horrible Republican Bushitlers have much less power to "take away all your rights" and "trample the Constitution" is to shrink government power while they can...
...for the dastardly eventuality of the inevitable next Repug President.
Sometimes I'm answered with "But if we get the RIGHT guy in power,he'll fix things"-I say "like Pol Pot,the Pathet Lao,Castro,Mao?" They answer "Who's Pol Pot? What's Pathet Lao?" I direct them to my friend Hong,who escaped them.Not to get too personal,but some of these folks don't really seem to have had a true Father Figure in their upbringing,so they all too readily fall for a make-believe one in their adult lives.Too obvious?
ReplyDeleteAddendum:as your reply seemed to insinuate,they don't comprehend the axiom "the road to hell is paved...".Ignorance of prudence,i.e.,thinking TWO steps ahead,let alone one.Also,not to stray too much,one might wonder at the attacks by so-called Feminists upon whom some may euphemistically call the modern-day Bodicea (spelling optional),or "merely" a Thatcher.Who are "the Stepford Wives",nowadays?
ReplyDeleteThe BIG MYTH is that the Left is for freedom, tolerance, or individual rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd that myth continues. Precisely because people do not learn of/from history, or see implications of actions.
In precisely the same way stupid (most) criminals commit crimes impulsively without considering the consequences.
The Left is for Libertinism...I begin to think, cynically, in order to keep the people so drunk on porn and glitz and fleshly appetites that they don't see, or maybe even don't mind the creeping totalitarianism.
And the Left is very adept at Bread and Circuses, distractions and hysteria. It's a lot more fun that "personal responsibility". Or "eternal vigilance".
It's amazing we're still in the game at all.