Hannity's America

[Kade]

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

Just because independant thinkers can see information, process it after analysis, and draw the same conclusion does not make it group think. The fact that many of us agree here on issues is not a process of group think but rationality. When one must parrot talking points from a specified news source they are the victims of group think....

People here parrot talking points all day.

Example: Liberalism=socialism.

 

[Kade]

Should we have fought the civil war?

How bout WWII?

That's a personal question. I am unqualified to answer it because I wasn't there. History is always a good tool for consideration.

 

[moostraks]

People here parrot talking points all day.

Example: Liberalism=socialism.

If you were parroting something another person posting said, but just coming to the same conclusion does not in essence make it group think. Capeesh?

 

[EndTheFed]

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During Groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight.

Just because independant thinkers can see information, process it after analysis, and draw the same conclusion does not make it group think. The fact that many of us agree here on issues is not a process of group think but rationality. When one must parrot talking points from a specified news source they are the victims of group think....

I haven't parroted ANYTHING. I have cited sources.

This is a rediculous argument.. I understand te point and actually agree with what you are saying BUT I am the one here (in this duscussion) coming to MY own conclusions after processing information andcoming to my own conclusions... But I forgot... you can do that but somehow i can't why? because I don't wholeheartedly agree with EVERYTHING RP says.

As I stated earlier... collectivism is ok as long as it is YOUR collectivism.

 

[EndTheFed]

Scratch what I said about Obama then.. it's my personal belief. I don't have a problem with any of his "friends".. Ayers and Wright are NOTHING compared to Keating and that Witch Doctor that Palin worships with.

Mccain went to ONE meeting for them, realisedhis mistake.. admitted it and has done all in his power to rightthe causes of this since.

Obama defendshis mistakes until they cannot possiblybedefended any more.

Obama has lied abouthis association with ayres... He had his original political comming out in his living room.

He now tries to portay it has he lives in hi neighborhood and their kids go to school tgether...

yeah right..

 

[georgiaboy]

End,

I'm voting Barr this year. You're not changing my mind.
You're voting McCain this year. I'm not changing your mind.

Can we move on to more productive things to further the C4L?

 

[EndTheFed]

That's a personal question. I am unqualified to answer it because I wasn't there. History is always a good tool for consideration.

mmm nice avoidance....

but you did not answer the queston...

 

[EndTheFed]

If you were parroting something another person posting said, but just coming to the same conclusion does not in essence make it group think. Capeesh?

Because I dont come to the same conclusion that you do doesnt make me submitting to groupthink either does it.

Capeesh?

 

[EndTheFed]

End,

I'm voting Barr this year. You're not changing my mind.
You're voting McCain this year. I'm not changing your mind.

Can we move on to more productive things to further the C4L?

Very true...

 

[moostraks]

I haven't parroted ANYTHING. I have cited sources.

This is a rediculous argument.. I understand te point and actually agree with what you are saying BUT I am the one here (in this duscussion) coming to MY own conclusions after processing information andcoming to my own conclusions... But I forgot... you can do that but somehow i can't why? because I don't wholeheartedly agree with EVERYTHING RP says.

As I stated earlier... collectivism is ok as long as it is YOUR collectivism.

No...you have been here parroting FOX news talking points. I offered my reasons for not marching to McCain and was told I was using tired views not worthy of your time. My points came from research independant of this forum on McCain when I considered the field of contenders prior to learning about Ron Paul or this forum. You exude FOX media slant with the various points you keep bringing up while demanding we are the collectivists because some may have some harmony on points here in refuting you. It doesn't make it group think. My knowledge came prior to my posting here and from various sources.

Hey I don't believe in just war theory which Paul does... So not mindless here as I have my own opinions. I was voting third party before Paul's announcement. His view did not change my choice.

For pete's sake the only person who could still drone on about the snowballs must be a FOX news junkie because that was such nonsense and a petty incident to boot.

 

[Mini-Me]

Should we have fought the civil war?

How bout WWII?

I'm not going to get into a big debate about this, since it's not the thread for it and I don't have the patience. However....

As far as the Civil War, no, we should not have fought it, for a multitude of reasons:

• First of all, after making the slave trade illegal, we should have made serious efforts to buy up all of the existing slaves and free them before even considering a brutal and bloody war...which also happened to be much more costly than buying the slaves anyway.
• Second, once the southern states seceded, slaves could have simply escaped to the North and been safe, since the North would honestly no longer give a damn about enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.
• Also, no matter how despicable the southern states were, states did in fact have a right to secede, and the federal government had no right to start a war against them just to bring them back.
• Besides, the Civil War wasn't even sparked entirely by the issue of slavery anyway. The North had also been trying to destroy the economy of the South for a long time, though I suppose you could always say it was just due to outrage over slavery.
• In any case, Lincoln himself didn't even care that much about slavery, and he personally admitted that he'd rather be able to bring the South back into the Union without abolishing slavery. All he really cared about was the tyrannical idea that states have no right to secede from the Union.

Bottom line: Every single other civilized country in the world ended slavery without war...we could have too, and so should we have.

In terms of World War II, it really depends on several factors, including the following two:

• How avoidable was Pearl Harbor? Did FDR know in advance? Did we purposely manipulate Japan into attacking? There are a lot of people who would answer, "Avoidable, yes, and yes," and while I'm not in the position to defend these claims, I certainly wouldn't discount them. If Pearl Harbor had never happened, we never would have needed to fight Japan.
• Did Germany's continued expansion pose a threat to the United States? (As a side note, World War II would probably NEVER have happened if we had not entered World War I and turned the tide of it...and that was a war which we had no good reason to join in the first place. Sure, we manipulated the Germans into giving us a pretext, but...)

In any case, why are those two questions even relevant to this thread?

 

[EndTheFed]

No...you have been here parroting FOX news talking points. I offered my reasons for not marching to McCain and was told I was using tired views not worthy of your time. My points came from research independant of this forum on McCain when I considered the field of contenders prior to learning about Ron Paul or this forum. You exude FOX media slant with the various points you keep bringing up while demanding we are the collectivists because some may have some harmony on points here in refuting you. It doesn't make it group think. My knowledge came prior to my posting here and from various sources.

My knowledege comes from many sources too. I started this thread about information on FOX and from thatyou mke me outto be a FOX robot... that is bs

Hey I don't believe in just war theory which Paul does... So not mindless here as I have my own opinions. I was voting third party before Paul's announcement. His view did not change my choice.

Do you believe we should have fought the civil war? WWI"

For pete's sake the only person who could still drone on about the snowballs must be a FOX news junkie because that was such nonsense and a petty incident to boot.

Yes it was but THE ONLY reason I have EVER brought that up in these forums is to point out that if we want the RP principles to get out to many weneed to not do things like that... Knowledge + wisdom will move itforward... knowledge only is not good.

 

[georgiaboy]

End,

Just so you know, I like you and I'm glad you're here. Your opinions, though completely off-base, are of course welcome. I know you've received abuse on other threads similar to this one, and I'm glad you've got the thick skin needed to ride out the storm. (gotta love those mixed metaphors).

That said, would you agree that most if not all the folks on this forum are pretty much mind made up regarding their voting preference in November?

Why not spend some time in the Liberty forest on these forums, lay off the 'who ya gonna vote for and why' circular debate?

The Economics & Sound Money Forum is really cool, as are the Freedom Living and Constitution forums.

We are a lively, intelligent, thoughtful, and multi-faceted bunch. We have the full political spectrum on here, and no issue is safe from dissection from every angle.

Switch from spin cycle to soak. It'll do a body a world of good.

 

[EndTheFed]

I'm not going to get into a big debate about this, since it's not the thread for it and I don't have the patience. However....

As far as the Civil War, no, we should not have fought it, for a multitude of reasons:

• First of all, after making the slave trade illegal, we should have made serious efforts to buy up all of the existing slaves and free them before even considering a brutal and bloody war...which also happened to be much more costly than buying the slaves anyway.
• Second, once the southern states seceded, slaves could have simply escaped to the North and been safe, since the North would honestly no longer give a damn about enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.
• Also, no matter how despicable the southern states were, states did in fact have a right to secede, and the federal government had no right to start a war against them just to bring them back.
• Besides, the Civil War wasn't even sparked entirely by the issue of slavery anyway. The North had also been trying to destroy the economy of the South for a long time, though I suppose you could always say it was just due to outrage over slavery.
• In any case, Lincoln himself didn't even care that much about slavery, and he personally admitted that he'd rather be able to bring the South back into the Union without abolishing slavery. All he really cared about was the tyrannical idea that states have no right to secede from the Union.

Bottom line: Every single other civilized country in the world ended slavery without war...we could have too, and so should we have.

In terms of World War II, it really depends on several factors, including the following two:

• How avoidable was Pearl Harbor? Did FDR know in advance? Did we purposely manipulate Japan into attacking? There are a lot of people who would answer, "Avoidable, yes, and yes," and while I'm not in the position to defend these claims, I certainly wouldn't discount them. If Pearl Harbor had never happened, we never would have needed to fight Japan.
• Did Germany's continued expansion pose a threat to the United States? (As a side note, World War II would probably NEVER have happened if we had not entered World War I and turned the tide of it...and that was a war which we had no good reason to join in the first place. Sure, we manipulated the Germans into giving us a pretext, but...)

In any case, why are those two questions even relevant to this thread?

Because as far as I know mosat here feel there is no just war...

 

[EndTheFed]

End,

Just so you know, I like you and I'm glad you're here. Your opinions, though completely off-base, are of course welcome. I know you've received abuse on other threads similar to this one, and I'm glad you've got the thick skin needed to ride out the storm. (gotta love those mixed metaphors).

That said, would you agree that most if not all the folks on this forum are pretty much mind made up regarding their voting preference in November?

Why not spend some time in the Liberty forest on these forums, lay off the 'who ya gonna vote for and why' circular debate?

The Economics & Sound Money Forum is really cool, as are the Freedom Living and Constitution forums.

We are a lively, intelligent, thoughtful, and multi-faceted bunch. We have the full political spectrum on here, and no issue is safe from dissection from every angle.

Switch from spin cycle to soak. It'll do a body a world of good.

Nice... I appreciate your attitude..

What you say here is true.. if thepeople here are really intelligent, thoughtful, and multi-faceted (Im not saying they are not), then show some of this andshow some wisdom in putting ideas forward to the outside world.

That is REALLY my main point. We will survive no matter who is elected this time around. I truly hope that by next election we can take the world by storm but that is going to take knowledge, wisdom, tolorance and education. We will not be able to educate people with the current mindset here (at least some of it). The condesending looking down the nose and you stupid sheeple mentality will not cut it.

 

[moostraks]

My knowledege comes from many sources too. I started this thread about information on FOX and from thatyou mke me outto be a FOX robot... that is bs



Do you believe we should have fought the civil war? WWI"




Yes it was but THE ONLY reason I have EVER brought that up in these forums is to point out that if we want the RP principles to get out to many weneed to not do things like that... Knowledge + wisdom will move itforward... knowledge only is not good.

It wasn't just the intial comment but the follow ups that peg you for a FOX shill who is blasting folks for not seeing things your way. You aren't even refuting the equally heinous perception of McCain but dismissing it out of hand as tired arguments. Then don't ask for responses.

No I don't believe in war as an answer. Reread...I said I disagreed with just war theory. A society should be capable of creating change without violence and we have enough intelligence and history to aid in problem solving.

The snowball fight was brought up and used to shame us. Saying it once was sufficient however you continued to brandish it to insult Ron Paul supporters for being of that ilk irregardless of their distance from the incident. Guilt by association. The only people who remember that incident and argue its importance are FOX shills, as it was a petty incident that was blown out of proportion and the only value I recall was what a petty, sorry person Hannity was shown to be after how he ditched his companion....

BTW how's the response coming on how Hannity called Paul a nutcase isolationist? You had been chatting up what a kind fellow Hannity was to Paul, so how does that square with talking behind his back or are you just dismissing that too???

 

[Kade]

Mccain went to ONE meeting for them, realisedhis mistake.. admitted it and has done all in his power to rightthe causes of this since.

Obama defendshis mistakes until they cannot possiblybedefended any more.

Obama has lied abouthis association with ayres... He had his original political comming out in his living room.

He now tries to portay it has he lives in hi neighborhood and their kids go to school tgether...

yeah right..

This response comes from your inability to read what I posted to you. You are parroting Fox Talking points. You responded to EXACTLY what has been countered by the article you chose to ignore.

This is also the single most poorly written response I've read yet on these forums. You are truly a plant from the Hannity Forums. Go back there before you somehow replace me as the Forum Target Dummy.

 

[Mini-Me]

Because as far as I know mosat here feel there is no just war...

Really? I've gotten the impression that most people here are not pacifists at all. I have seen very few who would not approve of defending the United States from a direct attack by another nation, for example. That said, while I believe that there is certainly a such thing as a just war, most of the wars we've fought since our inception have simply not been just at all by my standards*.

*I haven't bothered to codify those standards in exact terms, but I know my opinions don't line up entirely with the Christian Just War Theory. For instance, I'd piss all over the requirement about how a just war must be conducted by a "legitimate authority."

 

[Kade]

Really? I've gotten the impression that most people here are not pacifists at all. I have seen very few who would not approve of defending the United States from a direct attack by another nation, for example. That said, while I believe that there is certainly a such thing as a just war, most of the wars we've fought since our inception have simply not been just at all by my standards*.

*I haven't bothered to codify those standards in exact terms, but I know my opinions don't line up entirely with the Christian Just War Theory. For instance, I'd piss all over the requirement about how a just war must be conducted by a "legitimate authority."

No, you are correct.

We also have a lot of Brin style Survivalist here, who scare the living shit out of me with their insanity.

 

[EndTheFed]

It wasn't just the intial comment but the follow ups that peg you for a FOX shill who is blasting folks for not seeing things your way. You aren't even refuting the equally heinous perception of McCain but dismissing it out of hand as tired arguments. Then don't ask for responses.

No I don't believe in war as an answer. Reread...I said I disagreed with just war theory. A society should be capable of creating change without violence and we have enough intelligence and history to aid in problem solving.

Like our founding fathers right? the original revolution.. remember?

The snowball fight was brought up and used to shame us. Saying it once was sufficient however you continued to brandish it to insult Ron Paul supporters for being of that ilk irregardless of their distance from the incident. Guilt by association. The only people who remember that incident and argue its importance are FOX shills, as it was a petty incident that was blown out of proportion and the only value I recall was what a petty, sorry person Hannity was shown to be after how he ditched his companion....

It was brought up the same way it has been EVERY tim i have brought it up.. If you can'tadmit that that was WRONG then you are worse off then I thought.

If you don't believ there is a perception that RP followers are freaks then you are sadly mistaken.. I don't completely agree with this opinion but the more I am around here well it makes me wonder...

This percetion has roots somewhere an it is NOT ALL simple not liking his positions.

BTW how's the response coming on how Hannity called Paul a nutcase isolationist? You had been chatting up what a kind fellow Hannity was to Paul, so how does that square with talking behind his back or are you just dismissing that too???

Where is a reference to this claim? was he refering to his followers?