❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.

Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.

For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.

Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.

By design

---

Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.

You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.

My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!

The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.

Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.

I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.

Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞

Tags: philosophy ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ dualism ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ system

❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.

Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.

Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.

Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.

---

And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.

Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.

If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.

---

Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.

While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.

---

Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.

It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.

And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?

Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.

---

*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.

I don't accept your premise of either/or.

Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.

If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?

---

The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:

““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””

— timeDOTcom/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape is introduced into the discussion mentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.

When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.

There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?

Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"

One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.

---

“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”

Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?

Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.

If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.

Just like what is happening now.

The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.

That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.

---

I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.

I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.

Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.

That's it.

Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.

---

*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.

Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.

Is that what you want?

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”

---

Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?

I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.

I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).

Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?

Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?

Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.

---

For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.

Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.

Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.

Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.

What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right

---

You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.

I don't.

I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.

---

Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?

---

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Accepting responsibility does.

But not if they are denied the choice.

---

Then give me numbers instead of allegations.

At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.

---

It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.

My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."

I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.

I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.

---

I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.

---

I am not saying most women are irresponsible.

I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.

I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.

Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.

Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.

Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.

Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?

I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.

If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."

If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.

So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.

If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ reproductive rights ∙ privilege ∙ women ∙ fetus ∙ man ∙ rape ∙ health care ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ sex ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Christian ∙ patriarchy ∙ American ∙ presumed guilty ∙ domestic violence ∙ murder ∙ sex rules

❝❝Democrats have been fear mongering too. Especially since Trump announced.

I'm not going to say who is right or wrong, but I am going to point out that both major parties have done fear mongering over decades. If that is one behavior you're questioning, you should ask why is it bad when "They" do it and good when "We" do it?

I too get tired of the dualism. But I don't see it limited to one party.

My blocked follower on this site would tell you that I am oversimplifying. I don't think I am. Both parties do it. Both parties are contributing to the problem. Both have media allies who sing their praises.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community Notes: Religious harassment at Florida Gathering, Calif. school removes Bible verse, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ fear ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Donald Trump ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ They ∙ We ∙ dualism ∙ media allies

❝❝I'm going to say this again. If the Democrats are afraid of what Republicans do with government power…

…if Republicans are are afraid of what Democrats do with government power…

…if independents don't trust either the Democrats or the Republicans with government power…

…and if libertarians don't trust government power…

…maybe, just maybe, the government has too much power.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Leaks and Barr

Tags: maxims ∙ government power ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ independents ∙ libertarians

Hi there. I'm called NeoWayland and I'm libertarian. That means I think there is too much government.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't think he's good for liberty or the country. But I've also been watching the man for a long, long time. There's an exchange in the original Pirates of the Caribbean film.

““You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of.””

““But you have heard of me.””

And that's where we are, folks. Trump may be the worst president you ever heard of. But you have heard of him. And he plays the press better than almost anyone else on the planet.

Think about it, Trump has made several careers over several decades doing exactly that. He keeps turning bad press into press for his goals. Then he gets most of what he wants. He plays the long shots, more often than not he gets the payoff. Trump has spent his life turning obstacles and adversity into triumphs.

No, I don't like him. No, I don't trust him. But I can't deny Trump's success. The orange hair clown is a distraction. He plays a character to divert your attention, but underneath there is a first class operator and a pretty good executive.

Any of this is obvious to any one who bothered to do the research. That brings us up to just before the 2016 election.

You don't have to take my word for it, do some digging. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conspired to make HRC President. I'm not going to go over the shenanigans and rules lawyering that leveled the opposition in their party. It has it's roots in the superdelegates, and you don't need my instructions on how to clean your own house.

But HRC decided to go one step further. She decided that she needed a Republican clown to defeat. She picked Donald Trump. Without doing her homework, she bought into the image that he'd been selling for decades. HRC called in some favors. With Obama's help, Hillary set up a backup plan using ideas that have been very successful for the Democrats in the past. They tried to set up a false narrative that would give Democrats Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Trump and all Republicans for all time.

Or at least for the next eight years.

Yes, you read that right. Hillary Clinton picked Donald Trump to lose the election. And she called in every political marker she had to make sure he got the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton did not do her homework. Nobody in her camp did. They forgot that Trump turns adversity into advantage.

This isn't the first time Democrats have relied on false narratives. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Republicans were responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act over strong Democrat opposition. But because Republicans did not give special privilege and recognition to the designated victim class, they were "racist." In the public perception, "equal rights" got redefined into preferential treatment. But only for certain groups.

The later waves of feminism are way too complicated to untangle here. Feminism changed into a variation of the same theme. Preferential treatment AND special privilege on demand and as defined by certain very vocal women who claimed to speak for all. If a Republican politico did not support that instantly and without question, well, naturally they were misogynist and anti-woman. Never mind that the definitions constantly changed, or that the "rights" weren't always practical or even possible. No, certain women had to have what they demanded when they demanded and without consequence. Or the Republicans were keeping women down.

And then there is climate change. I've dealt with it extensively elsewhere. It doesn't use science, it uses the politics of victimhood. And you are not allowed to dissent.

There are other false narratives. But these are big ones from the Democrats. Republicans have their own, but I'm not going into those here.

Since at least the 1970s, Democrats have relied on the The Big Lie to manufacture narratives giving Absolute Moral Authority to denounce Republicans. Sometimes I wonder if the Democrat and progressive elites have forgotten how to do anything else.

And that brings us to the 2016 election aftermath. There was the narrative, Trump had colluded with Russians to steal the election. He was a traitor and a fool. All his supporters were uneducated and unsophisticated saps who Trump had exploited. Surely the virtuous Democrats could prevail against Orange Man Bad.

This time there was a difference. Any Trump watcher could tell you that Trump wasn't a politician. Most especially Trump wasn't the usual Republican politico who avoided political conflict in the name of bipartisanship. He couldn't be shamed or guilted into anything. Go after Trump publicly and he would hit back harder than you ever dreamed. Later he might call you up after and invite you to dinner and drinks, but that was after the hand was played.

This was Trump's background before he was elected.

And after? He was the Chief Executive. He just cleaned house a bit, put the right people in place at the right time, and was patient. He trusted in the American people and the rule of law. That law was on his side. All Trump had to do was the right thing. Talk about irony.

It could have been different if Democrats had gone after Trump for things he actually had done. Eminent domain abuses come to mind.

But no, everything was bet on one spin of the wheel. Democrats forgot that Trump built casinos. A well-run house never loses as long as it obeys the law and doesn't mess with the odds too much. All he had to do was the right thing.

Trump didn't "win" this one because of his virtue. He won this one because he played by the official rules. Not the unspoken rules that Washington has been using, but the actual official ones based in law and the faith of the American people. Because the Democrat elites didn't play by those rules, it gave Trump the Moral Authority to do what comes next. Not Absolute Moral Authority, but none of the Democrat leadership can challenge Trump when he goes after those who tried to take him down. Just for doing his job, Trump is going to be that much stronger in 2020.

So the Democrats are discredited.

If there is one piece of advice I hope you take from this, it's that you need to abandon the false narratives. Be true to your beliefs. By all means call Republicans out for breaking their word, but do the same for your own leadership. Don't look the other way because somebody famous claims to support your goals. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't. Don't take their word for it, see what they actually do.

If you are going to claim moral authority, you need to be true to your own morality.

Tags: ☆ ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ virtue ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Republicans ∙ Demorcrats ∙ goverment

❝❝The perception and focus of the Democrat party is that there are groups who have been disenfranchised by society at large and that it is time to "get theirs." It's not about rights, it's about the politics of victimhood. Interests aren't addressed, certainly not in a larger context of all rights for all people. It's about slights and injustices, even if those have to be manufactured.

Say what you want about Republicans (and I often say a lot), at least they don't define rights in terms of politically approved sub-groups to exploit victimhood and the divisions between people.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from That time when Democrats were responsible for low Black unemployment

Tags: maxims ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ disenfranchising ∙ rights ∙ victimhood ∙ injustice

❝❝I'm not going to talk about Trump and his failings or if he is substantially worse than the other presidents.

What I am going to talk about (again) is that all these efforts to nail Trump show that the Federal government has too much power and that rogue elements and actors are not held accountable.

Yes, Trump's office was bugged. But that is just part of a surveillance state that has been in turbo boost since 9-11. And 9-11 isn't a good excuse, it just codified and focused secret plans that had been drifting around since the 1970s.

The issue is not Trump. The issue is not the Republicans. The issue is not the Democrats. These ongoing struggles over which party is on the side of the angels and public perception over crimes and misdeeds, that's just the distraction. While we're arguing over who did what, there are unelected and unaccountable elements in government and high finance who are taking power and freedom away from you.

No, you didn't win. The game hasn't stopped. We are still being screwed. And the next bit will make this look like robbing a kid's lemonade stand.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Federal government ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ distraction ∙ tweeted

❝❝As far as I am concerned, you have no business going after Republicans until you at least acknowledge that Democrats aren't perfect and are just as good at messing things up.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ Trump Tower ∙ mainstream media ∙ trust ∙ overlook ∙ maxims

❝❝To me, the interesting thing is that most of the mainstream media is willing to ignore things like this so long as it's a Democrat doing it to a Republican.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Obama Administration ∙ Trump Tower ∙ wiretap ∙ Barack Obama ∙ incompetent ∙ liar ∙ Donald Trump ∙ mainstream media ∙ ignore ∙ rule of law ∙ abuse of power ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ greater harm ∙ maxims

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: California ∙ housing market ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ FBI ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ James Comey ∙ Human Rights Commission ∙ Christmas ∙ Presidency ∙ academic mobbing ∙ Marriott ∙ outrage ∙ commerce ∙ consensus ∙ United Nations ∙ Communism ∙ cool kids ∙ Facebook ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Austrailia ∙ data ∙ privacy ∙ government power ∙ Michigan ∙ Republicans ∙ Wisconsin ∙ regulation ∙ crony capitalism ∙ tech companies ∙ media ∙ polls ∙ Democrats ∙ House of Representatives ∙ health care ∙ immigration ∙ jobs

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: caravan ∙ Gallup ∙ Central America ∙ U.S. ∙ Republicans ∙ ballot box ∙ House of Representatives ∙ Gab ∙ Pennsylvania ∙ subpoena ∙ DNS provider ∙ Women's March ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ DNC ∙ Democrats ∙ health care ∙ Barack Obama ∙ energy independence ∙ Facebook ∙ George Soros ∙ Donald Trump ∙ inmate ∙ justice reform ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Speaker of the House ∙ Federal Reserve ∙ Jerome Powell ∙ Amazon ∙ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ conservatives ∙ universities ∙ climate alarmist

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Democrats ∙ Donald Trump ∙ opposition ∙ televised ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ accusations ∙ Little Rock ∙ police ∙ Radley Balko ∙ election ∙ ads ∙ robocall ∙ Daylignt Saving Time ∙ violence ∙ media bias ∙ media failure ∙ General Electric ∙ bankruptcy ∙ Antifa ∙ Yvette Felarca ∙ email ∙ society ∙ libertarian ∙ Brooklyn ∙ synagogue ∙ Republicans ∙ real estate ∙ San Francisco ∙ housing market ∙ London

❝❝No news source is going to be unbiased. Everybody has a narrative they believe in and everybody is the hero of their own story. I've no problem with people advocating for what they believe in. I have every problem with one side presented as THE Only Acceptable Solution and all other sides demonized. I also have problems when one side is presented as nearly saints and people looking the other way when it comes to the flaws of their champions.

As a rule, absolutes don't.

No one person and certainly no group has all the answers. The Christians aren't all wholesome, but neither are the pagans. The Republicans aren't all righteous, but neither are the Democrats. The labels have no vice or virtue. Only individuals can take responsibility for the consequences. The answers lie somewhere in the middle where we meet and work out how to live without killing each other.

I'd be worried if I agreed with everything written here. That would mean that there is no room left for growth on any side. That would mean that we have silenced the magick for political expediency. It would mean that perception was more important than change.

There's good work here. Sometimes that means telling people what they do not want to hear. ❞❞

Tags: unbiased ∙ narrative ∙ hero ∙ Story ∙ demonized ∙ saints ∙ champions ∙ as a rule absolutes don't ∙ answers ∙ Christians ∙ pagans ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ perception ∙ political expediency

I've said it before.

Many many, times.

It doesn't stop it from being true.

I'm not fond of the Republicans or the Democrats. But right now, the Republicans aren't demanding that we break the system and submit to their demands.

So here it is, plain and simple.

If you advocate violence, if you aren't willing to work within the system, you aren't entitled. You don't get respect unless you are willing to give respect.

I don't care what you feel. I don't care how right you believe you are. No one person has all the answers. No group has all the solutions.

And NO ONE has the right to impose their views by force. We agree on the rules or we have nothing.

There's no reason to respect you unless you respect others.

Even the ones you disagree with.

Pinned to the top until further notice.

Tags: truth ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ violence ∙ within the system ∙ respect ∙ answers ∙ solutions ∙ disagree

People can do most things on their own without government help, direction, or control.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ trust ∙ none of the above ∙ disrupt ∙ press ∙ publicity ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ progressives ∙ talking points

❝❝Ever notice when someone picks a scapegoat, it's because they think the scapegoat can't fight back?

---

I agree with you that politics is a source of great evil in the World.

I disagree that the Trump and the Republicans are the cause. Or even most of the cause.

One annoying thing about politics is that people are willing to overlook the misconduct of "their" side even while slinging wild accusations against the Enemy. The accusations may or may not be accurate. But you can count on the Enemy not being quite the Ultimate Horror Unleashed on Mankind. And you can count that your side is not quite the paragon of virtue and self-sacrifice that they claim.

Politics is about controlling the other. Never you, always the other. When government is involved politics is about control backed by force.

Politicians are never on your side. Even as they stand wrapped in the flag clutching holy writ promising that they will be your bestest friend ever no matter what.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Obama used the IRS and Justice Department against his enemies, among other things. And the Democrats looked the other way.

Rather than get into a long and pointless discussion of who did what worse, I want to point out something that most people overlook.

The politicos NEED you to blame the other party and never question the wisdom of your party's decisions. It's always the other party that is doing things Too Terrible and always your own party that promises to Save The Day. When you buy into that, you perpetuate the system. You're always going to be victimized and you're never ever going to be saved. If you were saved, you'd have no reason to vote the party line.

---

I know I have my political critics on this site, but believe me when I tell you that there are conservatives who are just as threatened by the Democrat leadership as you are by Trump.

Too often today, people make excuses for what their side does by trotting out the disasters from the other side.

I want less government. I think government is a terrible danger to liberty. I think politicos and technocrats complicate things because they don't want you asking questions and they don't want you changing the status quo. They don't want you understanding what they do.

So when I see someone insisting that this flavor of politico is slightly less objectionable, I tell them they are wrong.

---

Accurate, as far as it goes.

*sighs* Look, I know that other pagans think I am simplistic and partisan when it comes to politics. And believe me, I realize how ironic it is for me to denounce mixing paganism with politics while having a political blog called Pagan Vigil.

Politics is one of my darker passions. I'm better at it than any amateur has any right to be. I understand the temptations and lusts because those are my temptations, my lusts, but for a bit of discipline and some promises I made. There's a line from Doctor Who, “Good men don’t need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.” These days I try to use my abilities and urges in a good cause. Mostly I succeed.

I've said that politics is about controlling the other. It's literally "power over." All the processes, all the carefully defined rules to protect democracy, all the blame exists SOLEY to keep people from looking too carefully at "the sausage being made." To keep people from asking how much freedom they are "supposed" to sacrifice for "the Greater Good." To keep them from asking themselves why expecting the other guy to sacrifice and compromise is GOOD but they themselves aren't supposed to sacrifice and compromise. To keep them from accepting that POWER OVER for their principles just might not be as as effective as power with based on things we all share.

Smashing the opposition just makes more pieces that can regrow.❞❞

Tags: scapegoating ∙ World ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ control ∙ politicos ∙ Barack Obama ∙ IRS ∙ Justice Department ∙ party politics ∙ Democrats ∙ government ∙ technocrats ∙ political flavor ∙ pagans ∙ simplistic ∙ partisan ∙ blog ∙ darker passions ∙ temptation ∙ lust ∙ amateur ∙ discipline ∙ promises ∙ Doctor Who ∙ power with vs power over

❝❝Most of the claims of Republican racism are because the Republicans involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Republican ∙ Republicans ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights

❝❝Pitting Republicans against Democrats or the "right" against the "left" is the distraction. It gives people someone to blame without solving the problem. And it certainly doesn't help that it's selectively reported, depending on which party holds the Presidency.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ left ∙ blame ∙ distraction ∙ Presidency ∙ problems ∙ reported

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Tags: public schools ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ private alternative ∙ private sector ∙ competition ∙ school year ∙ internet ∙ education ∙ quality of life ∙ Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Clinton administration ∙ Obama administration ∙ affordability ∙ private companies ∙ choice ∙ truth

“Mueller Investigating Trump Over $150K Donation From Ukrainian Who Gave Clintons $13 Million”

Tags: special prosecutor ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Ukraine

We'll start with basics. The game is not what you think it is.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ racism ∙ alt-right ∙ DNC ∙ GOP ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Colin Kaepernick ∙ LBJ ∙ Strom Thurmond ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ projects ∙ aid for families dependent children ∙ privilege ∙ civil rights ∙ legacy

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ election ∙ Broward County ∙ sheriffs ∙ banking ∙ free checking ∙ goverment ∙ Amazon ∙ Civil War ∙ Trump campaign ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ progressivism ∙ geoengineering ∙ climate control ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Rod Rosenstein ∙ human progress ∙ newspapers ∙ machine learning ∙ markets

I remind you that no American political fact for the last two years has been easily ascertained. Or static.

Tags: facts ∙ Donald Trump ∙ HRC campaign ∙ DNC ∙ verify ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ NSA ∙ military spending ∙ audit ∙ reporters ∙ news outlets ∙ War on Drugs ∙ as a rule absolutes don't ∙ Islam ∙ Other ∙ Higher Truth™ ∙ American politics ∙ subjective ∙ Great Depression ∙ government experts ∙ capitalism ∙ myth ∙ goverment ∙ rules ∙ Republicans ∙ guilt by association ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ 2008 ∙ 2016 election ∙ email probe ∙ Pied Piper candidates ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ BLM movement ∙ grassroots ∙ experience

Rand Paul is right

““When Rand Paul took control of the Senate floor just before 6 p.m. Eastern, virtually every one of his Republican colleagues grimaced. Five years ago, they would have cheered him.

Paul's speech, which slowed attempts to pass a massive budget deal before the government shuts down at midnight, was a savaging of his party -- a party that appears to have turned 180 degrees from the deficit hawks of the mid 2010s who insisted that government spending was ballooning out of control and was crippling the country.

"When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party," Paul said at one point. "But when Republicans are in power, it seems there is no conservative party. The hypocrisy hangs in the air and chokes anyone with a sense of decency or intellectual honesty."

He is 100% right.

The simple fact is that Republicans in the Obama era defined themselves primarily as committed to reducing government spending and shrinking the nation's debt. The ur-document of that age was Paul Ryan's budget, in which he proudly touted the need to confront entitlement spending and make the hard cuts necessary to keep the country solvent for the foreseeable future.””
     — Chris Cillizza

Tags: Chris Cillizza ∙ clipping ∙ guest content ∙ Rand Paul ∙ CNN ∙ budget process ∙ Senate ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans

Thoughts before election day

Tags: Nazis ∙ Nikki Haley ∙ Michelle Cretella ∙ Fox ∙ Disney ∙ transgender ∙ Bill O'Reilly ∙ sexual harassment ∙ rumor ∙ arrested ∙ 11 year old ∙ Carterfone ∙ Carterfone ∙ net neutrality ∙ Senate ∙ Republican ∙ Roger Stone ∙ state and local taxes ∙ sex trafficing ∙ sex workers ∙ Maggie McNeil ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ culture wars ∙ bad cops

The FCC sneaks in the back door on the cable companies

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Stephen Colber ∙ Congress ∙ Truman Committee ∙ immigration reform ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans

Tags: student loan debt ∙ deficit ∙ Republicans ∙ Roy Moore ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Uber ∙ TSA ∙ Real ID ∙ FBI ∙ perjury ∙ Obama administration ∙ Trump campaign ∙ polar bears ∙ price gouging ∙ accusations ∙ Georgia ∙ collapse ∙ lawmakers ∙ bitcoin ∙ bubble ∙ special counsel ∙ Glen Reynolds ∙ Lisa Page ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ shopping mall ∙ commercial real estate

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Barack Obama ∙ State Department ∙ diplomat ∙ broadband ∙ Daniel Shaver ∙ Justice Department ∙ bad cops ∙ manslaughter ∙ Republicans ∙ mistake ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Donald Trump ∙ CFPB ∙ Department of Defense ∙ audit ∙ Las Vegas ∙ shooting ∙ destroyed wealth

Great quote that's right on the money

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ pure democracy ∙ unconditional surrender ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ progressives ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ misogynist ∙ racists ∙ sore losers ∙ ever expanding ∙ goverment ∙ self apponted ∙ elites ∙ demonized ∙ protesters ∙ positive changes ∙ sacrificing freedom ∙ smash storefronts ∙ we're here now

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: CFPB ∙ resistance ∙ Masterpiece Cakeshop ∙ marijuana ∙ pot ∙ taboo ∙ conservative ∙ Roy Moore ∙ Al Franken ∙ Trent Franks ∙ surrogacy ∙ First Amendment ∙ Phillip DeFranco ∙ Congress ∙ President ∙ Pam Anderson ∙ victimhood feminism ∙ Harvey Weinstein ∙ everybody knew ∙ black market ∙ Spain ∙ cheese ∙ Republicans ∙ tax cutting ∙ broadband ∙ internet ∙ Harvard ∙ drug prices ∙ big pharma ∙ monopoly ∙ August Ames ∙ gay porn ∙ exceptions ∙ adult film star ∙ QE

Older headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ looted ∙ Antifa ∙ Samantha Power ∙ unmasking ∙ Princeton ∙ campus newspaper ∙ editorial board ∙ dissent ∙ climate change ∙ Florida ∙ solar power ∙ crony capitalism ∙ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ∙ slush fund ∙ Congress ∙ President ∙ taxpayers ∙ Jeff Sessions ∙ fearmongering ∙ stingray ∙ warrant ∙ rental ∙ vacancy ∙ Elizabeth Warren

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Anthem ∙ Google memo ∙ speech wars ∙ diversity ∙ Eric Schmidt ∙ Disney ∙ tolerance ∙ moral ∙ courtesy ∙ Nevada ∙ Facebook ∙ conservatives ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Georgia ∙ Obamacare ∙ 17th Amendment ∙ Senators ∙ ICE ∙ appeals court ∙ press ∙ Vanity Fair ∙ Republicans ∙ Donald Trump ∙ voter dissatisfaction

Competition drives the free market, to keep customers companies have to make things better than their rivals and better than what they themselves did yesterday.

Competition is what the "single payer" eliminates in the name of efficiency, yet over time competition means that products and services will be better, faster, and cheaper.

There is no incentive to improve under a government controlled system. There is overwhelming incentive to pay off legislators and technocrats for favorable treatment.

---

I'm usually correct.

Except when I'm wrong… *grins*

Jokes aside, you probably agree with me on economics, smaller government and (most) individual rights. We won't agree on religion, personal morality, and sexuality. I hope we can agree on honor.

I hang out here to keep me honest and so I can see how conservatives think. And occasionally to keep you honest *wink* and keep you from taking yourself too seriously.

---

I just get very tired of watching people who should know better lump all members of a group into a monolithic block who is out to destroy their way of life and must be Stopped for the Good of Humanity™

The ironic thing is many of the people who complain loudest about it being done to them are only too willing to turn around and do it to someone else.

I've seen pagans do it to Christians, "blacks" do it to "Hispanics," Republicans do it to Democrats, and women doing it to men.

And vice versa.

You know what? It's not the label shouting and doing things, it's the individual person. Until you deal them as individuals rather than as a subset of a label, you have walled yourself off.

Not them. You.

---

Thinking about it just now, that raises a fascinating question.

Which is worth more, a moral code handed to you or one earned through personal experience?

---

I'm not asking you to follow my code.

I'm not even asking you to allow me to follow my code.

I'm telling you that I won't follow your code just as you would tell me that you won't follow mine.

Now we could find what we agree on and work from there, or you could spend effort telling me why your enlightenment requires my sacrifice.

I think the former would be more productive, but I would enjoy your frustration at the latter too.

Tags: competition ∙ make things better ∙ rivals ∙ yesterday ∙ incentives ∙ government ∙ economics ∙ smaller government ∙ individual rights ∙ religion ∙ personal morality ∙ sexuality ∙ honor ∙ honest ∙ conservatives ∙ monolithic block ∙ Christians ∙ pagans ∙ blacks ∙ Hispanics ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ women ∙ men ∙ moral code ∙ enlightenment ∙ sacrifice ∙ Crux Files

“The south used to vote Democrat. Now it votes Republican. Why the switch? Was it, as some people say, because the GOP decided to appeal to racist whites? Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University, explains.”

Tags: PragerU ∙ Carol Swain ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ racism ∙ myth ∙ guest content ∙ video

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: John McCain ∙ brain tumor ∙ government ∙ Left ∙ words ∙ medical autonomy ∙ rights ∙ Muslim ∙ Jeff Flake ∙ Clinton campaign ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ 2016 election ∙ Russ Roberts ∙ George Soros ∙ climate change ∙ campaign finance reform ∙ ICO ∙ Initial Coin Offerings

I pointed out before that dismissing arguments unheard and without even a cursory search to see if there is any validity just makes you look foolish and uninformed.

Tags: Trump supporters ∙ David Wilcox ∙ Chicago ∙ Mitchell Mormon Jr. ∙ Atlanta ∙ Rockville, Maryland ∙ San Jose ∙ protesters ∙ Eric Clanton ∙ Berkeley ∙ Democrats ∙ virtue ∙ Republicans ∙ villains ∙ media ∙ universities ∙ public schools ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ double check ∙ cheap shot

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ Clinton Foundation ∙ Qatar ∙ gun-carry ∙ Republicans ∙ ghost candidate ∙ Georgia's 6th Congressional distric ∙ 2016 election ∙ Obamacare ∙ crony capitalism ∙ ICANN ∙ NGO ∙ justicedenied.org ∙ Forejustice.org ∙ tax reform

We pagans have become the worst that we saw in the People of the Book.

Tags: pagan news ∙ cross posted ∙ Donald Trump ∙ virtue signaling ∙ binding spell ∙ witchcraft ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Chas. S. Clifton

The last couple of days I've been analyzing both parties and their leadership.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ DNC ∙ RNC ∙ election

We can argue whether the law is morally right or not.

Tags: immigration ∙ rule of law ∙ election ∙ government ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ short