Dumb Political Correctness

I tell you what, the Liberals are going to overplay their hand someday. I think the majority of people in Austin are actually Democrats and not Liberals; there is a big difference. If Donald Trump wasn't such an idiot he'd have many more Latino's in his corner. I know quite a few who are Catholics and this gender stuff is not playing well with them at all. Neither is the glee over abortion on demand. The far Left is a cult and they will never stop pushing the most extreme elements of their agenda. We have to acknowledge that fact. You can't negotiate with them. Their hatred is pathological. You just have to say no and have the courage to absorb their aggressive attacks on your character and your career.
 
Last edited:
Prodigal, what you are describing has been the attitude of the Progressive since the early 20th Century. They do indeed believe they are helping the children and that parents who disagree with them are harming their own children.

The issue is that policy makers are usually wealthy and don't really understand the needs or values of the people they are creating policy for. The other issue is that people who write policy are wealthy enough to send their children to private schools where they don't get the same message.

Make no mistake, these types of school policies aren't really to help children navigate life. They are to push a political agenda. The children are fodder or collateral damage if they are harmed in some way. The government must teach the children the values they want the next generation to have. Otherwise the revolution never comes.
 
bystander said:
I tell you what, the Liberals are going to overplay their hand someday. I think the vast majority of people in Austin are actually Democrats and not Liberals; and there is a big difference. If Donald Trump wasn't such an idiot he'd have many more Latino's in his corner. I know quite a few who are Catholics and this gender stuff is not playing well with them at all. Neither is the glee over abortion on demand. The far Left is a cult and they will never stop pushing the most extreme elements of their agenda. We have to acknowledge that fact. You can't negotiate with them. Their hatred is pathological. You just have to say no and have the courage to absorb their aggressive attacks on your character and your career.
Click to expand...
This. The GOP has let the racist rant go for way too long. I know they have to work up hill because of the media but if they could get through to blacks and browns that GOP is not racist, they'd mostly vote GOP. The Army is about as mixed a bag as you can with respect to race and I know my soldiers that were brown and black had value that were much more aligned with the GOP than democrats....except that they were taught that the GOP was racist. That one thing keeps those two groups voting democrat. We must find a way to elevate conservative minorities in the party (and women).
 
Monahorns said:
Prodigal, what you are describing has been the attitude of the Progressive since the early 20th Century. They do indeed believe they are helping the children and that parents who disagree with them are harming their own children.

The issue is that policy makers are usually wealthy and don't really understand the needs or values of the people they are creating policy for. The other issue is that people who write policy are wealthy enough to send their children to private schools where they don't get the same message.

Make no mistake, these types of school policies aren't really to help children navigate life. They are to push a political agenda. The children are fodder or collateral damage if they are harmed in some way. The government must teach the children the values they want the next generation to have. Otherwise the revolution never comes.
Click to expand...
And that's an angle that the right media should take. See here is Sen. Gillibrand in her nice big shiny home, sending her own kids to private school....despite her your kids=my kids bumper sticker....DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE's GOING TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU?
 
Joe Fan said:
What is it about low IQ folks that attracts them to the music business?

Click to expand...


That's a little bit of a distortion of what he said. He started off by saying that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system. He praised capitalism.

He called capitalism "amoral" in that it is neither good nor bad. That's essentially true - it's a structure that can theoretically be abused or used depending on the morality of the actors involved. It's an "input-output" type of system.

I think the comment about the wild beast was overwrought, but his point was simply that left unchecked, capitalism can cause a lot of damage. Well... maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much faith you have in the free market. If you're a pure capitalist, you believe that capitalism ultimately is going to weed out and punish bad actors, because theoretical capitalism is fully transparent, the market has all the information it needs to make a sound decision, and ultimately it will correct as people who are essentially moral beings choose to reward businesses that act morally.

I don't know a whole lot of people who are for a zero-regulation system, and it's because most of us don't 100-percent trust that the system won't be misused (at least in the short term) by parties to the detriment of the employees, the customers, or the environment.

Bono's probably farther on the heavy regulation side than most of us would be, but the guy at least is standing up against the people around him who are basically howling for a socialist economy.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
That's a little bit of a distortion of what he said. He started off by saying that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system. He praised capitalism.

He called capitalism "amoral" in that it is neither good nor bad. That's essentially true - it's a structure that can theoretically be abused or used depending on the morality of the actors involved. It's an "input-output" type of system.

I think the comment about the wild beast was overwrought, but his point was simply that left unchecked, capitalism can cause a lot of damage. Well... maybe, maybe not. It depends on how much faith you have in the free market. If you're a pure capitalist, you believe that capitalism ultimately is going to weed out and punish bad actors, because theoretical capitalism is fully transparent, the market has all the information it needs to make a sound decision, and ultimately it will correct as people who are essentially moral beings choose to reward businesses that act morally.

I don't know a whole lot of people who are for a zero-regulation system, and it's because most of us don't 100-percent trust that the system won't be misused (at least in the short term) by parties to the detriment of the employees, the customers, or the environment.

Bono's probably farther on the heavy regulation side than most of us would be, but the guy at least is standing up against the people around him who are basically howling for a socialist economy.
Click to expand...
The more appropriate word is neutral, not amoral.
 
mchammer said:
The more appropriate word is neutral, not amoral.
Click to expand...

Not to go all journo-major on you, but I would disagree with that. "Amoral" sounds bad, mainly because we sometimes use it to describe people, and in that context yes, it's bad. But all it means it the absence of a moral component. Capitalism is not a system that works based on whether something is morally right or wrong. It just is - supply and demand create a free exchange of goods and services. Now... you could argue (and here's where people I think push back on this) that having a capitalist system is in fact moral - because it allows the most amount of individual freedom to succeed and to use their resources and abilities to their own ends. That to me is a moral concept, and when I look at the good that capitalism does weighed against any negative impacts, I make a moral or ethical judgement on whether it's good or bad to have this system. But that doesn't mean that capitalism is moral.

"Neutral" implies that there actually IS a moral component, and that capitalism chooses not to take a side. I don't think that's true, because capitalism by its very nature does not reward good and evil equally. Not because the system has any inherent morality, but because the people involved are more likely to be good than evil, and they will make choices in that system which will reward good and punish evil. Capitalism doesn't weigh those two things and choose not to involve itself; it isn't involved because moral choices take place apart from and outside of its mechanisms.

That's where I think Bono is being inconsistent and illogical. If capitalism is amoral, then it's not capitalism that needs to be reigned in, it's the people involved in it. The answer isn't to water down capitalism; the answer is to make sure transactions are as transparent as possible, so that actors are held accountable by the market.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Not to go all journo-major on you, but I would disagree with that. "Amoral" sounds bad, mainly because we sometimes use it to describe people, and in that context yes, it's bad. But all it means it the absence of a moral component. Capitalism is not a system that works based on whether something is morally right or wrong. It just is - supply and demand create a free exchange of goods and services. Now... you could argue (and here's where people I think push back on this) that having a capitalist system is in fact moral - because it allows the most amount of individual freedom to succeed and to use their resources and abilities to their own ends. That to me is a moral concept, and when I look at the good that capitalism does weighed against any negative impacts, I make a moral or ethical judgement on whether it's good or bad to have this system. But that doesn't mean that capitalism is moral.

"Neutral" implies that there actually IS a moral component, and that capitalism chooses not to take a side. I don't think that's true, because capitalism by its very nature does not reward good and evil equally. Not because the system has any inherent morality, but because the people involved are more likely to be good than evil, and they will make choices in that system which will reward good and punish evil. Capitalism doesn't weigh those two things and choose not to involve itself; it isn't involved because moral choices take place apart from and outside of its mechanisms.

That's where I think Bono is being inconsistent and illogical. If capitalism is amoral, then it's not capitalism that needs to be reigned in, it's the people involved in it. The answer isn't to water down capitalism; the answer is to make sure transactions are as transparent as possible, so that actors are held accountable by the market.
Click to expand...
Morally indifferent, then.
 
Bono does a lot to help the poor around the world including giving of his own money.

I have a higher view of the market than him, but isn't the enemy.
 
I agree with the amoral comment. As ProdigalHorn said, it just is... and the wild beast comment is true to if it was unleashed as laissez faire, meaning no braking mechanism to it's impact on the environment and abuses such as trust formation.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Well aware of Bush's impact. Who met with GHWB to influence him? Bono. In fact, he was standing next to Bush in the Rose Garden at the announcement. Bono has been pushing the issue a long time.
Click to expand...

I'm not in a position to dispute that. I like Bono. I consider U2's performance of Bad to be superior to Queen's set at Live Aid. I think Bono can be a bit insufferable but we need to consider what happens to a human being who is treated like a God over a period of two decades and finds himself with the platform to influence people. His personality is what drives his dramatic stage performance and I supposed it spills over into his life. I don't know if his sanctimony is genuine or the realization on his part that politicians have to be backed into a corner sometimes to commit to a cause.
 
Full disclosure, I don't like U2. I think they're one of the most overrated and over-celebrated bands of all time. I don't think Bono is particularly talented. However, for a popular music artist (where the bar is set very low), he is pretty conscientious and intelligent. Most artists who spout their mouths off are much dumber and more idiotic. Just the fact that Bono was in a position to influence Bush says a lot about him.
 
Well, my feeling on U2 is that they are one of the most spectacular live acts in rock history. I think the Red Rocks show was incredible. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

And I think they hit a home run at the Super Bowl half-time show after 9/11.

As for bashing the US, I don't get worked up over that. I'm not a fan of our government's actions over the years. I think Bono loves us as a people and our country as a beautiful land of natural beauty.
 
bystander said:
Well, my feeling on U2 is that they are one of the most spectacular live acts in rock history. I think the Red Rocks show was incredible. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess.....
Click to expand...

I will concede, if forced, to admit that there is something about low IQ folks and successful bands. My current theory is that the music side of the brain became so dominant that it squished out the parts of the brain responsible for reason, insight, logic and judgement

I have a close friend who used to travel with Elton John. He always said Sir Elton was about as smart as a fence post.
 
Joe Fan said:
I love these collisions -- "Muslim parents in the UK are protesting homosexuality being taught in schools"

What liberals gonna do about that?

Councillor backs Muslim mums in 'homosexual teaching' school row
Click to expand...

I've said it many times; the people the far left are using as pawns to attack Trump are the exact opposite of progressive values. It's unbelievable. But when you are an elite, a feudal society sounds good. So you use them, throw them some love and take care of them by redistributing the wealth.

The hatred of Trump is an unbelievable problem.
 
Joe Fan said:
I will concede, if forced, to admit that there is something about low IQ folks and successful bands. My current theory is that the music side of the brain became so dominant that it squished out the parts of the brain responsible for reason, insight, logic and judgement
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that all art is populist and I tend to agree with that. A fully formed and full-time artist will always obsess over the poor. Even Bob Dylan was called an anarchist (he laughed about this in his movie Don't Look Back). A critic said he provided no solutions. I think the self-image of an artist is to be a counter-weight to all the evils of capitalism and power. They don't necessarily have to provide a solution. Only a voice or a conscience. They aren't going to spend a lot of time reading up on Keynes or Friedman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top