Posted on 11/02/2013 9:02:45 AM PDT by Republicanprofessor
1) Social media: Recently I made some pretty strong political posts on Facebook about Benghazi. Then I felt badly and was afraid to check FB in fear of what responses I would find. Why did I feel that way? My liberal friends post their memes all the time, but the conservatives are shy about expressing their opinions. We are bothered by what people will think. But why is this the case? If they are truly our “friends” on Facebook, we should be able to post what we really think and feel, right? We read our friends’ posts and even appreciate their notes about their pet issues and projects, their families and even the difficulties they have overcome in their lives.
It has been said that small minds talk about people, others talk about events and still others talk about ideas. I post about a variety of things: skiing, sunsets, teaching issues, books, travel and politics. I think that social media is the place to exchange all kinds of ideas, and we see everything on social media; funny events and family pictures and celebrity scandals all over our Facebook pages, whether we subscribe to them or not. It is certainly wonderful to begin, rekindle and maintain connections with friends old and new, to see their families grow, marry and create grandchildren. But as I tell my husband (who always complains about the emptiness of Facebook), you create your own page and your contacts with your friends. If you find the content to be dull, find more enlightened friends.
2) Political posts: can they change people’s minds? So, why is it tricky to post about politics? I think the internet has made it easier to find all kinds of angles on any event that you wish to follow, some legitimate and some fabricated. And if we read our articles or blogs only from our favorite political side, it is easy to get revved up and to post articles and memes that echo our political fervor. I much prefer posting articles to memes since one can answer and debate these ideas within articles, while memes are thrust into one’s face to propagandize, not to critically analyze.
Obama is the first president elected with internet expertise. He definitely knows how to campaign. But he is also the first president wherein the internet could be his undoing. He may tap reporter’s phones, the NSA may tap other phones and track emails, and the IRS may punish those on the wrong political side, but the internet continues to counter his statements with facts and stories that dispute the statements made by his administration. Those who fight the corruption and cronyism of his administration will not give up, just as those who disagreed with the Bush administration keep up their criticism even to the present day.
There are some issues wherein one can reasonably debate both sides: immigration is one of these and one which, I admit, I have not been closely following. But then it gets to the point where actions are either right or wrong, and sometimes one can become trapped on the “wrong” side without realizing it. For me, the president’s actions before, during and following the Benghazi attack are wrong on every level. But my liberal friends still defend him. How difficult is it to just admit that, with more information, that one’s former support of one side seems to have been the wrong thing to do, even if in doing so one is deviating from the party line? Is that even possible, or do people just blindly follow the talking points of their party without critically analyzing the events and facts? Does the internet make it easier or more difficult to change sides, to thus align our politics with our innermost values? Or do our political alliances limit us to being tied to a political party regardless of what turns out to be right or wrong? I would encourage my liberal and Democratic friends to seriously re-evaluate their support of Obama, who is not turning out to be quite the “hope and change” president they expected. How many scandals does it take to outrage the Democrats enough for them to pull support from their president, or do the ends always justify the means? It should be acceptable to change your allegiance to Obama. If the president has the military shoot citizens in an attempted coup to become dictator, would Democrats finally change their support for him then?
3) Too much stress upon “winners” and “losers?” Right or wrong, win or lose. It also occurred to me recently that perhaps our society places too much important upon “winning” and “losing” in our lives and in our politics. Ours is, or was, a competitive society where the strong survive. As I write, the Red Sox parade is occurring in Boston. Hurray for them. We live in New England, but we are barely aware of organized sports, since wins and losses (exciting as they are) are often transient, here today and gone to a different team tomorrow.
But with the recent government shutdown, it seemed that what mattered most to those in Congress and the media was who “won” the shutdown so they could blame the other party and thus benefit from their distress. Facts, purposes, rebellions did not matter. The media, already leaning toward one major party, distorted the sources of the shutdown in order to damage the other party as much as possible. If you repeat a lie often enough, people buy it as the truth. “Obama won, the Republicans lost.” Only after the mean and “racist” Republicans caved on defunding Obamacare did the Democrats begin to waiver in their support for the disastrous ACA. No credit given to the courage of those who stood for their principles. No, destroy them, and then we’ll change our minds and change the media’s approach and all will be well again.
Then you also have the loss of civility. If it is all about who wins and who loses, then you can call the losers or even those with whom you disagree any names you want. The political parties become bullies and the polarization between them becomes unworkable. Consider the names that Democrats called Republicans: racist, unhinged, legislative arsonists, people with “a bomb strapped to their chest”, blatant extortionists, hostage takers, and worse. Democrat rarely debate the facts of the issues. They desecrated Romney’s character over the summer of 2012, calling him a liar again and again. I could never discern what specific lie they were referring to. No matter about the specifics, if we call them enough names, they will lose their credibility.
The problem then is trying to work with those whose reputations you have ruined. The American public decries the loss of civility, but we love the competition (imbedded in our society) that leads to “winners” and “losers.” We complain that Congress does not work together to solve the issues of the day (deficits, unemployment, staggering taxes and debt), but would you want to work with the people who had just called you a liar and a racist? I have heard that if it is difficult to work with someone, you should look in the mirror yourself and find who is to blame.
4) Working together to solve problems: Wouldn’t it be more productive if, instead of blaming the others and calling them names, our political leaders would actually meet together and openly exchange ideas and work toward a solution? The solutions do not have to reside in either one party or the other; there must be many ideas that could be aired and brainstormed with others to find solutions that could be great but which have not occurred to anyone yet. Could the politicians let down their defensive barriers and group think paralysis long enough to solve these issues? Could they actually think of the good of the country instead of their own seats and the pork projects for their districts?
Here are two ideas for beginning this process or cooperation and reducing the national debt: my dream, admittedly naïve as it is, would be to ensure that each congressman and senator eliminated at least one pork barrel project in their district, thus saving tax paying dollars for everyone and reducing the debt. We could also institute a 10% cut across the entire national budget as the first step in reducing that national debt. My hope would be that good managers could eliminate what must be at least 10% of waste across the board. Politicians would meet and consider the best solutions to the problems apart from their own district’s benefit. They would be receptive to facts and ideas on the other side of the aisle, because neither side has a monopoly on truth. And they would be guided by facts, not feelings. Much of the best intentioned legislation has turned out to be a disaster because it was not thought-through carefully enough. Politicians should be free to admit their errors and work toward a solution. It should not be too hard. They are adults, are they not?
Perhaps if the people of the U.S. become fed-up enough, they will indeed elect a new set of representatives and a new third of the Senate. Perhaps we need a new crowd of fresh faces to begin the respect, courage, honesty and hard work that should characterize our political parties as well as the nation itself. Ours is a particularly unique nation and it should be able to recover from the intense hatred and dysfunction that this partisanship has created.
Nov. 2, 2013
I don’t do Facebook, but here’s my two cents.
If your goal is to educate and inform, stick to factual reports or opinion pieces backed up with solid facts.
Don’t post articles or opinion pieces which criticize or lampoon Obama personally. Stick to policies. Obama will soon be history. But the policies he has managed to institute will live on and need to be reversed.
If you find a piece from a liberal source or liberal author critical of Obama’s policies, that’s a bonus. I.E., the recent columns by Ezra Klein critiquing the Obamacare rollout.
There are many woefully uninformed or misinformed folks out there. If some of those are among your family members or friends, then by all means try to enlighten them.
I had a FB “friend” and colleague defriend me when I called him on the lies he spread about Romney. There was this great article, probably from FR, about the lying strategies Democrats use, and he was using them. I called him on it, posted the article and he defriended me. Oh well, his posts were incredibly left wing rampant ranting; no loss. Although it is good to see how they (the libs) are thinking.
Another professor from a different college defriended me when I compared Obama’s manipulation of children on an issue (probably gun control after the CT shooting) with Hitler doing similar things.
I thought “liberals” were supposed to be open to other ideas...right.
Good point about the “internet expertise.” He is obviously poor at implementing websites like Obamacare, or overseeing the implementation thereof.
What I meant is that he seemed to use social media very well in his campaigns. He is a great campaigner. Too bad he can’t govern or lead worth a damn.
My FB friends, along with the NSA, know exactly where I stand politically and theologically. A few have “de-friended” me. That’s fine. In fact, it is to be expected, just as darkness cannot stand light. A crypto-communist narcissist currently holds the office of President, and he is fully supported by a like-minded staff/media. They only have authority that has been given from Above. No matter how overreaching or overbearing they may appear, in the end they serve the Church, and their liberal arts (good film and music) serve us as well. They are the slaves, not I.
I am often saying, “Would you support a Republican who did these things ________?” (insert any scandal you like: Benghazi, NSA, IRS, etc.)
They never reply....but maybe they are thinking...
That is often my tactic: to post intriguing articles, especially those by Thomas Sowell, that might spark some thought. I try to be polite as I do so... (Many of the liberal friends have dismissed Sowell as a “crackpot” since I posted an article of his about how liberal college professors are. But I keep posting anyway.)
I can only hope they are read as much as those by your friends.
I love your statement “Sometimes it hurts to think.”
To be precise, the quote is: "Great minds talk about ideas; mediocre minds talk about events; small minds talk about other people."
Frequently and falsely attributed (by liberals) to Eleanor Roosevelt.
Great graph, thanks. The YouTube statistics are staggering.
Social media for the moment is an agressive tool for getting the “Conservative message” out among folks that have no idea what it is all about, along with the rank & File foot soldier of conservative bent.. Recently, after the 2012 election, conservatives started to get the message. Both John McCain (2008) & Mitt Romney were terribly weak candidates, with no hint at all of messaging through modern media!!!
Ted Cruz, etc., is miles above and ahead of them and their RINO deadbeats!!! That is why folks like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rush Limbaugh, the Dailey Caller, and hundreds of individual conservatives across the country are now posting heavily on “Facebook, Twitter”, etc.
The difference between the postings of Obamabots & Conservatives is that Conservatives tend to keep their language reasonable, while the Obamabot group favors the rants, raves & cursing. I believe this outreach is having substantial success for conservatives, across the political spectrum, and the success will continue unabated!!!
We must also take advantage fo the “Obamacare Implosion” currently ongoing!!! We must use this media and others to grab voters who, prior to this Obama farce were living in the Obama bubble!!! a powerful tool is now in our hands...Use it!!!
That’s why they’re so anxious to get Hillary in for 8 years. To frighten people into silence due to sexism. I wonder if it will work?
Or try this: "Which of Obama's policies do you believe I'd support if he were fully white, and not half-white?"
That should nonplus them for a moment.
I remember when there was a doubt he even knew how to drive a car! How was it proved that he did? Parking tickets up the wazoo!
Liberal seminar posters call for this on social media all the time, as if the Republicans are somehow to blame for the name-calling. What they mean by "working together" is: "Democrats will propose something far to the Left, RINOs will counter with a moderate proposal giving Democrats most of what they really want, and a 'bipartisan' consensus will then be achieved that is well to the left of where we are today."
A scorched earth, "No More Spending - Period!" approach is what is needed, and a wrenching of the whole landscape of the debate back toward liberty and away from collectivism.
High school friend dropped me after I posted about the Trayvon Martin trial. We’re culturally very much in line. Except he was always more politically liberal he went on and got a PHD. Along the way he became a huge liberal. The kind that would say we should spend trillions and print as much money as we need because it’s just paper.
Whenever he posted some anti-conservative macro, I’d offer a rebuttal to which he’d get upset and sometimes pull down the convo. I asked him if it was bothering him because I’ll reserve myself on commenting on his posts as I don’t wish to cause a problem with the friendship. He declined saying it’s not a problem when I post and he pulls them down because he’s tired of keeping them on his page. Apparently, that was not true.
One day when I posted about Zimmerman’s trial and how near the end it’s become apparent this was a railroading and the state essentially proved that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense he got upset and played the racism angle. That Trayvon was a victim of a racist Zimmerman. That sparked an argument with other friends and family where he started mockingly calling people “cracker” and eventually he defriended me though I never belittled or insulted him.
I agree, he had a well-run web presence. I just don’t believe he knew one iota about it and it’s execution.
The only thing I’ve ever seen in media about what he actually does himself is riding a girl’s bicycle like a homo, observing real karate matches on the WH lawn - like a poofter, and standing on a short step ladder hanging window curtains - like a homo.
Every other presence he’s had in the media is a big effing mouth, spouting about how he’d change this country.....unfortunately, that is the one area in which he has apparently succeeded.
Nice post!
Your friend shared many of the same traits that Obama described in one of his books...the ability to befriend whites and not seem scary.
Unfortunately, this never is truly friendship. It is just tolerance and acting for their own purposes.
Learn to spot it.
MY FB page is PRIMARILY political...I am trying to EDUCATE my nieces, nephews, grandchildren and other family members as well as friends....one “cousin” who hates politics has finally started liking some of my posts...even a 26 yr old granddaughter is reposting...but, she married a Mormon!
I am sure some of my “friends” have removed me...and I lost a 30+ year “friend” last year, but that was from an email....
I refuse to live a FAKE life...
I think the Left displays characteristics of some kind of mass or collective/communal demonic infestation.
I say this not at all jokingly but based on empirical observation.
For example, I have noticed with individuals I know personally which have no connection to each other exhibit traits which are identical (and pathological). There is a profound intellectual dishonesty bordering on blindness which is common. And then there is a tendency to make boldface lies (by folks I have known for years who were previously honest people).
There is a kind of mass insanity if you will.
Now as to the demonic aspect of it...
I use the concept of demonic infestation because the traits I mention aren't morally random (i.e. some good, some bad, some morally ambiguous). These traits are ALL hostile, hurtful, injurious, and, yes, deeply angry when taken to the conclusions to which they seem to be pointing.
It's similar to what I have read about regarding psychiatrists who have worked with people who claim to have been abducted by aliens (one such psychiatrist is the now deceased Dr John Mack of Harvard).
While Dr Mack drew no conclusions initially of the truthfulness or lack thereof of the experiences, many of which were conveyed to him in hypnosis, many of details provided from a wide range of disparate individuals (from different backgrounds and none knowing the others) were identical. And ultimately, these experiences these individuals endured were (again) not morally random but, like the traits exhibited the members of the Left, were dark and malevolent. Many were filled with what might have been historically thought of occult symbolism (including sadomasochism and perverse sexuality).
There is the question of some (actually many) in the community of professionals who have looked into the alien abduction phenomenon that perhaps these ARE NOT "alien" experiences at all but a kind of demonic possession or infestation. The trauma that results is quite similar to that which some psychiatrists have associated with those who have eventually undergone ritual exorcisms. And, yes, the psychiatric community is always brought into modern evaluations as to demonic possess. Only cases which cannot be explained medically/psychiatrically are considered for possible exorcism (and even then many if not most are rejected by the churches).
In conclusion, let me clarify that those who have been traumatized by what they believe are "alien abductions" are quite different from those on the Left. The abductees appear to be innocent victims whereas those mindless zombies of the Left seem to be active and gleefully willing participants.
The Left moves with a herdlike singularity...always to a goal of spreading the soulless religion of the tolerance of amorality and truthlessness. The Left has a herd-mentality when it comes to their hatred of empirical reasoning and examination of themselves. They appear pathological in their apparent willingness to accept the death or imprisonment of those who disagree with them.
Anyway, just saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
