You are one weird kid. I of course did not understand a damn thing you said. Sometimes obscure speech is to avoid presenting surface area, but usually to an opponent, so here I'll assume whimsy.
I used "social engineering" in a sentence a few minutes ago and wanted to look up some kind of official definition. Dang it is getting hard to find the definition that's not just the technical, hacking one.
On a second page of hits I found that Webster's still retains its historical definition:
Management of human beings in accordance with their place and function in society.
(Hey, what could be more moral than that, right?)
Anarchy: The undesirable and highly unnatural absence of social engineering.
The mushy middle is angry about being lied to, but ultimately they've been convinced that the Left is the side of "good" (where both the Left and Right know that's not true) so they know that it must've been for their own good. Afterall, nothing good can come if a Republican can get his way, so only goodness and fairness can emanate from Dems. So their anger is tempered by knowing it was out of love, which'll make it that much easier to forgive and forget in a couple of years. Let's face it, the next time they enter the cardboard ballot boothette, and they're presented with the choice of the racists and mean-spirited and greedy, or the caring and compassionate and fair-minded, if you were a dummy which you feel more comfortable aligning yourself with?
The bottom line: When we used to watch Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner, we didn't believe it was real, we were just entertained by it. 1/3rd of Americans are so stupid nowadays they actually believe cartoons are real, in the form of cartoonish political descriptions. How another 1/3 of us got communist in America I don't know, and that's a tougher nut to crack in some ways because those people know why they believe what they believe. But for the non-thinking 1/3, you can't fix stupid.
p.s. I like that definition:
Anarchy: Where people mature into largely self-governing citizens. <shudder>
The Democrats, as a solid Left party, know full well that the GOP is a moderate Left party hoping to ditch its fringe Conservative wing and has no burning desire to turn anything back. So even if the public punishes the Dems one eensy weensy election cycle for screwing them over so grandly, the GOP won't do anything about it, they'll just do nothing, meanwhile the Left will remind everyone what racists and woman haters and dirty air lovers etc. Republicans are. So then 2 years later people will just vote the Dems back in control. A short timeout is a tiny price to pay to put the country on the road to socialized medicine in particular and more looking to and accepting of a strong federal government for things in general. The Left won't show it (keep 'em fooled, all the time) but they're ecstatic.
I've seen my 2nd news piece in days trying to besmirch North Dakota.
I barely remembered we even have such states, until the Right started talking about it, how in this shitty economy there are supposedly jobs there and good paying ones, in oil industries. Hmm, someplace where capitalism hasn't been suppressed and is very successful, tapping our natural resources that are fossil fuels, well no wonder, it could only have been a matter of time.
It's sad to me when someone on the Right acts like those on the Left.
And besides, it shows complete misunderstanding. The author and maybe you think that's tit-for-tat, but it's not. This contains gobs and gobs of paragraphs of faux reasoned arguments, but the Left never provides any backing. Because that's beside the point. The point is to simply to bully and end discussion, certainly not to invite one or provide any kind of surface area for rebuttals. This is the opposite of modeling the anti-intellectualism of (the tactics of) the Left, and therefore any capturing of the true essence of the "Racist!" bomb. To wield it like they do, one must just throw it and run. Without the cowardice and vacuousness, it's just not genuine copycatting.
Something mildly funny I heard tonight: Make gay divorce illegal and see how much they want gay marriage then.
You should see edit links at this old skool URL:
Being socially Conservative would probably keep you from getting very far toward the national level I guess. (Which is too bad, as I read today that apparently once you attain the level of U.S. Senator, then your being spied upon by the feds finally becomes un-American.) But you could make a difference starting locally, such as with that slogan, which if it caught on could grow to achieve national attention, even if you couldn't achieve national office.
As the Left continues centralizing and homogenizing the country, I'd definitely love to see a resisting force in a movement encouraging communities to think locally. Like the sentiment behind "Charity begins at home.", where you should take care of those closest to you first, and then expanding out further as resources permit. Bottom up vs. top down, caring communities over a welfare state.
On the way to work this morning a co-host of some local radio station made an interesting point I thought. While "Republican In Name Only" traditionally meant a Liberal Republican, and therefore one who didn't really belong in the party, as the GOP nowadays seems to just want to be Democrat Lite, then to be a Republican is to be a moderate Progressive. Making me not a real Republican. Now I'm the RINO.
Recommend a face de plume.
"because the market likes to run in secret"
As the free market detractor that you are (which, BTW, in no way makes me the equal and opposite worshipper of it), it's not surprising at all that you don't understand it. "The market" is not just teh evil big business; it's everyone who engages in economic transactions. Sure the sellers want to run in secrets. Too bad the stupid buyers don't care. We get the businesses we have for the same reason we get the politicians we have; because we the little guy don't give a hoot. Average joes could have any kind of country we want, if we'd just vote with our dollar and ballot accordingly.
Why don't you run for office? You sound like an upstanding member of your community. And you care about America. I'd vote for you (believe it or not). I'm so sick of our ruling classes (political but business too) I've already gotten to the point where I would vote for someone I disagree with on some major things, *if* they're an ordinary citizen and not a ruling class douchebag. I lack the charisma to do it myself, but I'm encouraging everyone I know (which is only ordinary folk) to consider public service in regards to taking back our country from elites. That's my particular big tent philosophy.
If we really cared what moral evil might lurk behind our purchases, we'd demand the information. But yes that becomes much more difficult as the scale gets larger, and our products come from who-knows-where.
"This reading gives us a very basic idea of what Christian economics should look like."
No, it does not. The "last will be first and the first will be last" is not a parable for this life you boob. It's about the afterlife.
It's that if Hitler repented with his last breath, he receives the same blessings in Paradise as Mother Theresa.
It has nothing to do with "to each according to his need", or a "liveable wage", or in terms of any other Lefty poppycock. Please kindly remove your Commie baggage glasses before reading the Bible.
p.s. I feel as though Marxism is so deeply entangled into Catholicism, that the sect is a total loss.
Because education is not about empowering with knowledge to make independent judgments. Why ask a libertarian question about a Progressive institution?