As usual, I want to make a move, but I've lived long enough to know better than to rush a thing. That's especially true when buying a used car.
Yes, I saw what looks like a nice used car, but ....
This may take some time to check it out and make sure that it is what I really want to do. So, no deal today.
Meantime, I took a long snooze today. That's what it is like when you are older. You don't sleep as well at night, and then you make it up during the day with a snooze or two.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, June 6, 2015
The future: an unknown road
Well, I got approved by the Ubernauts, so I can drive for them if I wish. First, I need a car. Three letter word, but a big deal.
If I start driving, I will have less time to research things on this here blog, and so what happens here?
Should I care if my blog fades into even greater obscurity? You know, I'm already losing what little audience I had. The numbers have crashed again. Should I care?
That bit in the previous sentence about popularity spawned an idea for a catch phrase: the truth isn't popular, and popularity ain't truth. For example, Rush Limbaugh likes to brag about his audience. Or he used to brag about it. Since I don't listen to Rush anymore, I don't know if he still does. But that's not the point. The point is that Rush seems to think that his audience numbers confirms his claim to knowledge of the truth. If I am right about this, then I would have to disagree. In my opinion, he has made some compromises with truth in order to get as popular as he is.
What do you think, that is, those of you who still come here and are not bots?
I'm not going away though. I may have to structure my time to accommodate my new schedule. Perhaps I will do the same thing I did out at da Ranch. I could make videos and link to them here. Video blogging as opposed to writing.
But nobody likes to look at me anyway. Ain't purdy enuff. Bwah, hah, hah.
I've got a busy day ahead if I decide to shop for a car. I've got some dealerships recommended to me by Uber, but there are other places I may check out first. Or, I may not do this after all.
The final decision has yet to be made.
If I start driving, I will have less time to research things on this here blog, and so what happens here?
Should I care if my blog fades into even greater obscurity? You know, I'm already losing what little audience I had. The numbers have crashed again. Should I care?
That bit in the previous sentence about popularity spawned an idea for a catch phrase: the truth isn't popular, and popularity ain't truth. For example, Rush Limbaugh likes to brag about his audience. Or he used to brag about it. Since I don't listen to Rush anymore, I don't know if he still does. But that's not the point. The point is that Rush seems to think that his audience numbers confirms his claim to knowledge of the truth. If I am right about this, then I would have to disagree. In my opinion, he has made some compromises with truth in order to get as popular as he is.
What do you think, that is, those of you who still come here and are not bots?
I'm not going away though. I may have to structure my time to accommodate my new schedule. Perhaps I will do the same thing I did out at da Ranch. I could make videos and link to them here. Video blogging as opposed to writing.
But nobody likes to look at me anyway. Ain't purdy enuff. Bwah, hah, hah.
I've got a busy day ahead if I decide to shop for a car. I've got some dealerships recommended to me by Uber, but there are other places I may check out first. Or, I may not do this after all.
The final decision has yet to be made.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Quick post before I go, 6/5/15
The truth is a slippery thing, but it matters more that you care about it. Even though you may not find it, the search for it means something. It means that you are a sincere person.
There's really nothing worse than insincerity. I see it sometimes in myself and am disgusted every time I see it.
I'm not excusing my insincerities. I'm only acknowledging them and pledging to do better. That's all anybody can ever do in this life. Nobody can be perfect, unless you are a liberal. Then, it doesn't matter anymore.
There's really nothing worse than insincerity. I see it sometimes in myself and am disgusted every time I see it.
I'm not excusing my insincerities. I'm only acknowledging them and pledging to do better. That's all anybody can ever do in this life. Nobody can be perfect, unless you are a liberal. Then, it doesn't matter anymore.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Ronald Reagan liked to say that, too.
Kennedy is said to have said it.
Yet, I cannot find it on Youtube. Has this been scrubbed?
Really, people. I'm thinking the truth is being scrubbed everywhere it is sprouting out.
Chuck Norris might have said it.
Why do you suppose that people are so afraid of the truth?
Kennedy is said to have said it.
Yet, I cannot find it on Youtube. Has this been scrubbed?
Really, people. I'm thinking the truth is being scrubbed everywhere it is sprouting out.
Chuck Norris might have said it.
Why do you suppose that people are so afraid of the truth?
A "can people handle the truth" moment
Mike Huckabee is against homosexual marriage. Now, I am not too far into the campaign at the moment, but that position has gotten some favorable notice from yours truly.
Well, it turns out that there's some news that is intended to reflect unfavorably upon him. He pulled something off this campaign website, it is said, because of a scandal regarding some celebrity who endorsed him.
Since I'm not into that TV stuff, I don't know who Duggar is, and frankly, don't care. But there's some allegations of sexual misconduct involving Duggar when he was a boy and it involves one of his sisters.
Actually, I can't recall all that many details about what the allegations were, but they don't appear to be all that serious. Yet it is being turned into a real shitstorm by the left.
Why? To go after Huckabee, I suppose. So, when Huckabee pulls the connection with Duggar off his website, I'm thinking MISTAKE. Huck should stand firm and refuse to give ground to the homosexuals who are pushing this. At least, I'm thinking it is the homosexuals because they want the right to homosexual marriage.
Perhaps the wrong thing to do when a scandal arrives is to try to sweep it all under the rug. Unfortunately, it may be the only way to protect yourself because people never go down deep into a story, they just look at the surface details and then form an opinion that may not be reflective of all the facts.
Still, my preference is to do battle. Especially with something like this.
After all, what is the homosexual's excuse for their behavior? That they were "born that way"? So, if the young Duggar acted the way they did, he would be asking latitude to marry his sister because getting it on with sisters is what turns him on and he shouldn't be deprived of his civil rights. I mean he was "born that way" and that is a valid excuse with pedophilia and incest, just like with homosexuality.
But Duggar really didn't do all those things did he? I mean, he grew up, and his little sister grew up, and nothing really terrible happened here did it? It was a bad moment in a good family. The world didn't come to an end. No real harm done.
Is that an excuse? No. But things need to be kept in perspective. The people who are doing these things want their behavior as adults to be accepted as normal, but are yelling at something that a man did when he was boy to be compared with their own, and thus to be condemned for the behavior as a defense for their own behavior as ADULTS.
Huckabee shouldn't throw the guy under the bus. It only encourages them.
On the other hand, is the general public capable of handling the truth of the situation, or will they side with the homosexuals?
Well, it turns out that there's some news that is intended to reflect unfavorably upon him. He pulled something off this campaign website, it is said, because of a scandal regarding some celebrity who endorsed him.
Since I'm not into that TV stuff, I don't know who Duggar is, and frankly, don't care. But there's some allegations of sexual misconduct involving Duggar when he was a boy and it involves one of his sisters.
Actually, I can't recall all that many details about what the allegations were, but they don't appear to be all that serious. Yet it is being turned into a real shitstorm by the left.
Why? To go after Huckabee, I suppose. So, when Huckabee pulls the connection with Duggar off his website, I'm thinking MISTAKE. Huck should stand firm and refuse to give ground to the homosexuals who are pushing this. At least, I'm thinking it is the homosexuals because they want the right to homosexual marriage.
Perhaps the wrong thing to do when a scandal arrives is to try to sweep it all under the rug. Unfortunately, it may be the only way to protect yourself because people never go down deep into a story, they just look at the surface details and then form an opinion that may not be reflective of all the facts.
Still, my preference is to do battle. Especially with something like this.
After all, what is the homosexual's excuse for their behavior? That they were "born that way"? So, if the young Duggar acted the way they did, he would be asking latitude to marry his sister because getting it on with sisters is what turns him on and he shouldn't be deprived of his civil rights. I mean he was "born that way" and that is a valid excuse with pedophilia and incest, just like with homosexuality.
But Duggar really didn't do all those things did he? I mean, he grew up, and his little sister grew up, and nothing really terrible happened here did it? It was a bad moment in a good family. The world didn't come to an end. No real harm done.
Is that an excuse? No. But things need to be kept in perspective. The people who are doing these things want their behavior as adults to be accepted as normal, but are yelling at something that a man did when he was boy to be compared with their own, and thus to be condemned for the behavior as a defense for their own behavior as ADULTS.
Huckabee shouldn't throw the guy under the bus. It only encourages them.
On the other hand, is the general public capable of handling the truth of the situation, or will they side with the homosexuals?
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Inflation?
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OK1FB20150604?irpc=932
Calling Paul Krugman. Come in Paul Krugman. Do you copy, sir?
Possible solution for marriage issue
This homosexual marriage thing has been a continual headache for me because I like to think in terms of solutions, but the problem seem insolvable.
Maybe Alabama is on the right track. They are said to be getting out of the marriage business. Ka-ching!!!
That's it! Marriage can be treated like a business partnership. That way, it can be legal and regulated by the state and avoid these other issues.
If you want to get married in a church, and have the church's blessing, that too is possible. Otherwise, it is a civil arrangement. Nobody is required to do business with you. You don't have to marry somebody who is not in your church. In other words, you can't force Christians to marry Muslims can you?
In other words, homosexuals can form business partnerships that are based upon many of the commonly held understandings of marriage without stepping upon the religious sanctity of marriage itself. It wouldn't be called marriage. It would be called a civil union. This has already been discussed in the past, so it isn't new.
The government couldn't interfere in marriages conducted and supervised by the churches.
Civil unions can be equivalent to marriage, but not be called marriage in the eyes of the law. Thus, there is discrimination, but fundamental rights are not violated. They just don't get to call it marriage and have it recognized as such.
People may have some rather strong reservations about this, but look at it this way. It may be the only way to resolve the issue without a lot of turmoil.
Maybe Alabama is on the right track. They are said to be getting out of the marriage business. Ka-ching!!!
That's it! Marriage can be treated like a business partnership. That way, it can be legal and regulated by the state and avoid these other issues.
If you want to get married in a church, and have the church's blessing, that too is possible. Otherwise, it is a civil arrangement. Nobody is required to do business with you. You don't have to marry somebody who is not in your church. In other words, you can't force Christians to marry Muslims can you?
In other words, homosexuals can form business partnerships that are based upon many of the commonly held understandings of marriage without stepping upon the religious sanctity of marriage itself. It wouldn't be called marriage. It would be called a civil union. This has already been discussed in the past, so it isn't new.
The government couldn't interfere in marriages conducted and supervised by the churches.
Civil unions can be equivalent to marriage, but not be called marriage in the eyes of the law. Thus, there is discrimination, but fundamental rights are not violated. They just don't get to call it marriage and have it recognized as such.
People may have some rather strong reservations about this, but look at it this way. It may be the only way to resolve the issue without a lot of turmoil.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
What good is there in homosexual marriage?
Is that a fair question? Let's put it this way: what good does it do for society? Or is that a concern to anyone? Is the individual's desires more important than the society in which he lives? Are we to expect that everybody is to live with only their own interests and desires as their guide posts? Is there anything else that we should be concerned about besides just ourselves?
If everyone thought that way, that is, in a purely selfish way, would a civilized society even be possible?
For a society needs replenishment of its numbers. Homosexuals cannot reproduce.
If everyone thought that way, that is, in a purely selfish way, would a civilized society even be possible?
For a society needs replenishment of its numbers. Homosexuals cannot reproduce.
Thumbs up or down?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article22980159.html
If he is guilty, what's the problem?
Whatever happened to National Review?
Ronald Reagan approved of the publication, but it has changed. No way Reagan would support this thing now, if he were still alive.
National Review is for homosexual marriage and now for Lindsey Graham? You gotta be sh*ting me.
Actually, even the alleged conservative Rush Limbaugh has rotted out. He uses the left's language, and so he must agree with them after all.
National Review is for homosexual marriage and now for Lindsey Graham? You gotta be sh*ting me.
Actually, even the alleged conservative Rush Limbaugh has rotted out. He uses the left's language, and so he must agree with them after all.
Words really do mean things
Except nowadays, when words can mean whatever you want them to mean. That's the culmination of the postmodern mindset. "Gay" can mean homosexual, and so the language changes to accommodate the new understanding. Only trouble is, is that if postmodernism is to be taken literally, then truth is whatever you want it to be, then it ought to be what it has always been, but no, we can't do that.
What got me thinking about this post was the continuing use of the word "elite" when referring to the ruling class. The ruling class refuses to allow gifted Asians in their schools, but they get to call themselves "elite" while dumbing down the quality of their institution. They are deliberately inferior, but somehow get to call themselves "elite". Not by my book. They are definitely second rate.
As before, when I decided I will not used the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals, I will also stop using the word "elite" when referring to second rate ruling class type people.
If words really mean things, why go along with those who are second rate?
What got me thinking about this post was the continuing use of the word "elite" when referring to the ruling class. The ruling class refuses to allow gifted Asians in their schools, but they get to call themselves "elite" while dumbing down the quality of their institution. They are deliberately inferior, but somehow get to call themselves "elite". Not by my book. They are definitely second rate.
As before, when I decided I will not used the word "gay" in reference to homosexuals, I will also stop using the word "elite" when referring to second rate ruling class type people.
If words really mean things, why go along with those who are second rate?
Huckabee's words get twisted
Huckabee On Transgender People: I Wish I Could’ve Said I Was Transgender In HS To Shower With The Girls
This isn't a direct quote because there are no quotation marks. If there were, Huckabee might have something actionable.
A transgender person, as I understand it, is someone who has already gone through the procedure. Huckabee was talking about "feelings", not about the physical reality of being transgendered already.
Even in this twisted age, it wouldn't be allowed to have a 42 year old man in the showers with prepubescent girls. That's the gist of what Huckabee said.
And this is presented as something controversial for Huckabee to say.
The media is becoming downright satanic.
This isn't a direct quote because there are no quotation marks. If there were, Huckabee might have something actionable.
A transgender person, as I understand it, is someone who has already gone through the procedure. Huckabee was talking about "feelings", not about the physical reality of being transgendered already.
Even in this twisted age, it wouldn't be allowed to have a 42 year old man in the showers with prepubescent girls. That's the gist of what Huckabee said.
And this is presented as something controversial for Huckabee to say.
The media is becoming downright satanic.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
It's Bruce Jenner, not "Caitlyn"
Yeah, and to write a post like this is quickly becoming "controversial".
What the hell is controversial about truth? The guy was born with a y chromosome which determines sex. There's no way that I am aware of that can change this fact. Nothing to change the way his hips were formed, which were built for running, and not having babies. His hormones have to be replaced with female hormones because he is a male, not a female. And so on and so on.
You can make a person look a lot different, but the genetics is not changeable. Bruce Jenner is a guy.
Update:
Just read Limbaugh's view of this. Sorry, but I don't think his point of view is relevant to issues. It's only relevant to political junkies and how the political game is played. It doesn't have much to do with the truth. Wasn't Rush about the relentless pursuit of the truth? What truth is he talking about now? He is just talking about the horse race aspect of the politics of this. That's all there is to it.
What the hell is controversial about truth? The guy was born with a y chromosome which determines sex. There's no way that I am aware of that can change this fact. Nothing to change the way his hips were formed, which were built for running, and not having babies. His hormones have to be replaced with female hormones because he is a male, not a female. And so on and so on.
You can make a person look a lot different, but the genetics is not changeable. Bruce Jenner is a guy.
Update:
Just read Limbaugh's view of this. Sorry, but I don't think his point of view is relevant to issues. It's only relevant to political junkies and how the political game is played. It doesn't have much to do with the truth. Wasn't Rush about the relentless pursuit of the truth? What truth is he talking about now? He is just talking about the horse race aspect of the politics of this. That's all there is to it.
Homosexual marriage significance
Will probably remain unknown to this generation, but will become known in future generations for certain.
As for me, I am against it. I think that its significance is like the Ship of State that becomes detached from its moorings, and cast adrift upon a stormy sea. Where it ends up is in the hands of powers greater than itself.
In my opinion, the ship will sink as it is smashed against the rocks, where the sirens sing their song of doom.
As for me, I am against it. I think that its significance is like the Ship of State that becomes detached from its moorings, and cast adrift upon a stormy sea. Where it ends up is in the hands of powers greater than itself.
In my opinion, the ship will sink as it is smashed against the rocks, where the sirens sing their song of doom.
Connecting the dots, can anybody do this?
Nobody could do it before 9-11, or if they did, they were ignored.
The majority thinks we're on the wrong track, and have consistently said so for the longest time.
Something's wrong, so what is it?
Does anybody really know?
The majority thinks we're on the wrong track, and have consistently said so for the longest time.
Something's wrong, so what is it?
Does anybody really know?
CNN/ORC poll : Marco Rubio And Rand Paul Pose Greatest Threat To Hillary Clinton
Free Republic
Reminds me of the quote attributable to Vince Lombardi, the great NFL coach who said "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."
If that is taken to the extreme, then lying is also acceptable, is it not? Then does it make any real difference who runs against Hillary if the candidate can only beat Hillary, whatever he has to say is okay?
A recent CNN/ORC poll finds 75 percent of Republican partisans prefer that their party nominate a “presidential candidate who can beat the Democratic candidate,” while only 25 percent prefer a nominee who agrees with them on issues that matter most to them.
Reminds me of the quote attributable to Vince Lombardi, the great NFL coach who said "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."
If that is taken to the extreme, then lying is also acceptable, is it not? Then does it make any real difference who runs against Hillary if the candidate can only beat Hillary, whatever he has to say is okay?
Gallup poll says adultery "least morally acceptable"
Over 90% say so.
But why is that? The prohibition against adultery is one of the 10 Commandments, is it not? Haven't we all become rather secularized? Why should something like this be the exception? Well, perhaps they didn't ask about the other nine.
A closer look indicates that this really wasn't that kind of poll. It wasn't a poll about the 10 Commandments. Then what to make of this particular finding?
Let's speculate, shall we? Isn't marriage the most intimate of relationships? It will affect you personally on the most profound level, does it not? If you are married, then your wellbeing depends upon this relationship being sound and secure, does it not?
It is a rational evaluation then, since it affect one personally, while the others in the poll not so much. Rational, but also selfish. Indeed it is.
People want loyalty from another person because it affects them personally. This is in keeping with the rest of societal attitudes that whatever goes on outside of one's own skin is of no concern. Adultery may be seen in this way as no comfort at its disapproval in terms of morality because the rest of societal attitudes don't fall in line with it. End of speculation.
Is it okay to be extremely selfish, then? It wasn't asked, but one would wonder what the result of that poll would be.
But why is that? The prohibition against adultery is one of the 10 Commandments, is it not? Haven't we all become rather secularized? Why should something like this be the exception? Well, perhaps they didn't ask about the other nine.
A closer look indicates that this really wasn't that kind of poll. It wasn't a poll about the 10 Commandments. Then what to make of this particular finding?
Let's speculate, shall we? Isn't marriage the most intimate of relationships? It will affect you personally on the most profound level, does it not? If you are married, then your wellbeing depends upon this relationship being sound and secure, does it not?
It is a rational evaluation then, since it affect one personally, while the others in the poll not so much. Rational, but also selfish. Indeed it is.
People want loyalty from another person because it affects them personally. This is in keeping with the rest of societal attitudes that whatever goes on outside of one's own skin is of no concern. Adultery may be seen in this way as no comfort at its disapproval in terms of morality because the rest of societal attitudes don't fall in line with it. End of speculation.
Is it okay to be extremely selfish, then? It wasn't asked, but one would wonder what the result of that poll would be.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Some engagement on the issue of homosexual marriage
If the Mahablog is any indication.
Reading that junk is like reading stuff written by the Devil himself. But to know evil, one has to become familiar with it.
It's funny how Maha will allow anyone to post on her blog as a commenter only as long as they agree with her. She has her own little soapbox and only she can stand on it. Liberals are like that. They are quite Puritannical about their own set of beliefs, and quick to condemn you if you deviate from their dogma.
Now, the thing I've outlined there in that last sentence is why their talk of right wing persecution complex is just another one of their lies. She puts the ear muffs on so that nobody can hear any evil, which she defines as anything that in disagreement with her. If a so-called right winger says anything at all in criticism or protest, they are wrong to do so.
I am banned from commenting on her blog just because I disagreed with her. Not because I really did anything wrong. But disagreeing with them IS wrong. Morally wrong, in their own moral universe.
If I am right, and I think I am, then what are they so afraid of?
Reading that junk is like reading stuff written by the Devil himself. But to know evil, one has to become familiar with it.
It's funny how Maha will allow anyone to post on her blog as a commenter only as long as they agree with her. She has her own little soapbox and only she can stand on it. Liberals are like that. They are quite Puritannical about their own set of beliefs, and quick to condemn you if you deviate from their dogma.
Now, the thing I've outlined there in that last sentence is why their talk of right wing persecution complex is just another one of their lies. She puts the ear muffs on so that nobody can hear any evil, which she defines as anything that in disagreement with her. If a so-called right winger says anything at all in criticism or protest, they are wrong to do so.
I am banned from commenting on her blog just because I disagreed with her. Not because I really did anything wrong. But disagreeing with them IS wrong. Morally wrong, in their own moral universe.
If I am right, and I think I am, then what are they so afraid of?
Our Changing Moral Climate
Legal Insurrection
My take on this article is that the people are being corrupted. More so amongst the left, but the so-called right is also being corrupted, just on a slower time scale. The political left is what I'd called the moral equivalent of a rapist, who turns a woman into a whore.
It ought to send shivers down your spine, but the odds are that it won't. Considering everything that is happening, with the technology and so forth, the world is likely to become a very scary place in the future. The virtue that was once there is disappearing fast.
Not one person in a hundred will understand why, or even bother to think about why this is happening.
That last sentence may be wildly optimistic, if that is to believed to be possible.
My take on this article is that the people are being corrupted. More so amongst the left, but the so-called right is also being corrupted, just on a slower time scale. The political left is what I'd called the moral equivalent of a rapist, who turns a woman into a whore.
It ought to send shivers down your spine, but the odds are that it won't. Considering everything that is happening, with the technology and so forth, the world is likely to become a very scary place in the future. The virtue that was once there is disappearing fast.
Not one person in a hundred will understand why, or even bother to think about why this is happening.
That last sentence may be wildly optimistic, if that is to believed to be possible.
Where does the time go?
My computers are getting old, clunky, and slow.
I should get new ones, but the same old problem emerges. Don't want to spend the dough.
Anyway, there was an issue with my Uber app, so I had to resubmit some info. Still not done with that. Plus there are some complications with Uber. They really do expect you to have a car. I figured I could rent one and use it on a trial basis. This really complicates matters. Uber may not work for me after all.
Not done yet, still working on it.
I should get new ones, but the same old problem emerges. Don't want to spend the dough.
Anyway, there was an issue with my Uber app, so I had to resubmit some info. Still not done with that. Plus there are some complications with Uber. They really do expect you to have a car. I figured I could rent one and use it on a trial basis. This really complicates matters. Uber may not work for me after all.
Not done yet, still working on it.
We are the Borg
An expert predicts humans will become cyborgs within 200 years.
Lovely.
Seven of nine wouldn't be too bad, though.
Lovely.
Seven of nine wouldn't be too bad, though.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Has the world wide web been a good thing?
In some ways, yes. But in other ways, no.
Information can be found faster and easier than ever. But what good is that when truth is claimed from the coercion of a mob. The web can create mob like conditions.
Wishbone was telling me that you can't say anything good about Republicans on Huffington Post. I figured that they'd censor bad things about Democrats, but anything good about Republicans too? This is a type of incitement of mob behavior. The web can do that much faster and easier than what could take place with the old ways.
Whoever can control the mob can control a state. A scary thought indeed.
Information can be found faster and easier than ever. But what good is that when truth is claimed from the coercion of a mob. The web can create mob like conditions.
Wishbone was telling me that you can't say anything good about Republicans on Huffington Post. I figured that they'd censor bad things about Democrats, but anything good about Republicans too? This is a type of incitement of mob behavior. The web can do that much faster and easier than what could take place with the old ways.
Whoever can control the mob can control a state. A scary thought indeed.
What was that again about 10 bucks v. a million bucks?
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
This Is How Little It Cost Goldman To Bribe America's Senators To Fast Track Obama's TPP Bill
By Tyler Durden
Created 05/30/2015 - 22:23
It took a paltry $1.15 million in bribes to get everyone in the Senate on the same page. And the biggest shocker: with a total of $195,550 in "donations", or more than double the second largest donor UPS, was none other than Goldman Sachs.
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-30/how-little-it-cost-bribe-senates-fast-tracking-obamas-tpp-bill
Hatred v. Love
A quick thought on this early Sunday morning. There are others, but as I mentioned before, they seem to get lost sometimes. But I wanted to post on this one, because if you are going to argue with someone who will pull out that accusation, you need a response to it.
I try to use reason when I can. However, reason often falls short. As a matter of fact, it seems to happen almost all the time. So, it's kinda hard to stick with it because force "works" better in the real world.
Anyway, let's get the show on the road, so to speak. My first thought of the day is like this: you've heard it said that "love is blind". My thought is that hatred is also blind. While love is blind to another's faults, hatred is blind to another's virtues. A person who hates cannot find anything good in another, whereas someone who loves cannot find anything bad. Both hatred and love, then, are blind. It is just a matter of what one is blind to.
One who brands another as a "hater" is blind to his own faults, and may well be blind to opponent's virtues. It is also true that an opponent may be totally lacking in any virtue at all. I'd say such a person would be a person who knows what the truth is, but is willfully committed to denying it or covering it up.
Truth is the gold standard. If you are going to hate, then let it be just. You might be more indulgent with your loves.
I try to use reason when I can. However, reason often falls short. As a matter of fact, it seems to happen almost all the time. So, it's kinda hard to stick with it because force "works" better in the real world.
Anyway, let's get the show on the road, so to speak. My first thought of the day is like this: you've heard it said that "love is blind". My thought is that hatred is also blind. While love is blind to another's faults, hatred is blind to another's virtues. A person who hates cannot find anything good in another, whereas someone who loves cannot find anything bad. Both hatred and love, then, are blind. It is just a matter of what one is blind to.
One who brands another as a "hater" is blind to his own faults, and may well be blind to opponent's virtues. It is also true that an opponent may be totally lacking in any virtue at all. I'd say such a person would be a person who knows what the truth is, but is willfully committed to denying it or covering it up.
Truth is the gold standard. If you are going to hate, then let it be just. You might be more indulgent with your loves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)