[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well that's an interesting question: What's more important, what's fair for homosexuals or what (may or may not be) best for America?

I'd like to think some happy medium can be found. For what good is America if we permit the least of us to be denied certain rights that supposed were guaranteed all of us?

The pursuit of happiness. VS The family, the building block of society.

Ooops, tell me what you'd title the P/L thread to continue this and I'll follow you there.

[Doofy]

Here's another little snippet about change for the sake of change.

Until 1997 (when the leftists got into power), married couples in the UK got a tax break. The leftists removed that tax break. Now we have a problem with a housing shortage (about a million homes short).

Turns out that a lot of couples are no longer getting married and living in separate homes. And a lot of married people are also buying second homes, effectively so they can live alone and just meet up for nookie at the weekends. It's so prevalent that there's a catchy name for it (LATs or something like that - Living Apart Together).

No tax break = no incentive to live together = housing shortage.

Reason for problem: Leftist governments don't do "joined up" thinking.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

But THAT'S the point! Conservatives have a great deal of certainty about certain things! Ever wonder why that is? It's not just a put on attitude, you know.

It's called not ignoring your "inner voice"

Some people have been taught or programmed to ignore this. They are told to be "free thinkin" (another leftist buzz word that means ignoring common sense)

[Doofy]

Another illustration of the leftist tendency for change and not thinking things through properly:

This government wanted to bring in "flexitime" working hours (i.e. set your own hours).
But then wants everyone to car pool.

Given that 87% of all companies in the UK have less than four staff, that doesn't really make sense, does it?

How do you car pool with someone who doesn't go home at the same time as you?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's called not ignoring your "inner voice"

Some people have been taught or programmed to ignore this. They are told to be "free thinkin" (another leftist buzz word that means ignoring common sense)

A couple of years ago our courts were told to disregard "common sense" as "common" excludes ethnic minorities and immigrants.

How's that for social engineering?

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I'd like to think some happy medium can be found. For what good is America if we permit the least of us to be denied certain rights that supposed were guaranteed all of us?

The pursuit of happiness. VS The family, the building block of society.

Ooops, tell me what you'd title the P/L thread to continue this and I'll follow you there.

Edit 2: Forget what I said. I don't accept the family as the ONLY building block of society, or the most important for that matter.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

A couple of years ago our courts were told to disregard "common sense" as "common" excludes ethnic minorities and immigrants.

I don't even know what that means. Other than it just being political speak - sounds nice but means nothing.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Because they're confident. Confidence does not beget veracity, however.

And how can I tell you to trust me when I intentionally and also sometimes without being able to help myself, post carelessly and non-sensically?

Here's how.

Trust your gut.

You know I have put it all out here. The good, the bad and the ugly. The things I post that are nonsense and partisan politicking you can probably tell. The things I feel strongly about, you can tell.

But I NEVER try to get you guys to do anything.

I make my case. You do what you want.

For example, I KNOW the President's war performance hasn't been perfect. But I KNEW from the time I read the Lee Harris essay that Zimphire posted here in 2004 that the Jihadists HAD to be stopped.

Believe it or not there are STILL some people and some pretty bright people who just don't get it.

Example. There's a professor at the Naval War College or something, named Douglas Borer who is suggesting we should try joining forces with Osama bin Laden!

Here's something I dreamed up that I think is new and progressive thought that I've read nowhere else so I posted about it a few times here this past week.

Libs/Dems/Fuzzies have no plan for transitioning the OTHER guy to peace.

You all talk about peace. Dream of peace. Work toward peace. Peace is cool. Peace out.

But what happens when you talk peace to OBL? He imposes HIS idea of peace on YOU and if you don't agree you are dead.

So peace is a fine idea but it is impractical the way you guys have conceived it so far.

Well, conservatives KNOW this. You guys don't. This knowledge is true and truth. And knowing it is true gives us confidence. You guys have been taught that peace is the answer and you say it to each other and sing and march for it and base your political actions and activism on it.

Yet, you don't know that your idea of peace will last only as long as you don't meet up with a determined foe.

This is a truth which I am confident of.

Tell me about how effective peace will work on the terrorists with nukes, bio or chemical weapons.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I don't even know what that means. Other than it just being political speak - sounds nice but means nothing.

Well... Let's say a pedestrian walked into the road and was hit by a car.

Before, common sense was applied and as it's common sense to not walk into the road in front of a car, the walker would have been at fault and the driver would have been found to be blameless.

Now, due to the fact that some immigrants (perceivably) may not have the common sense to not walk into the road in front of a car (i.e. they're from deepest Africa where there aren't any cars or something), the walker will be blameless and the driver at fault - even though it's clearly, by any common sense observation, the walker's fault.

Thus furthering the aims of the left. In this case, making life miserable for car drivers (in the hope that they'll all ditch their cars and use public transport).

This is not a joke. This is happening for real in the UK.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

And how can I tell you to trust me when I intentionally and also sometimes without being able to help myself, post carelessly and non-sensically?

Here's how.

Trust your gut.

That runs contrary to everything most conservatives say. They complain about liberals thinking with their 'gut' or their emotions. They stress they use logic and reason.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

But I NEVER try to get you guys to do anything.

That's silly. You post either to try and get us to think, to try and inform us, to try and change out views.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well... Let's say a pedestrian walked into the road and was hit by a car.

Before, common sense was applied and as it's common sense to not walk into the road in front of a car, the walker would have been at fault and the driver would have been found to be blameless.

Now, due to the fact that some immigrants (perceivably) may not have the common sense to not walk into the road in front of a car (i.e. they're from deepest Africa where there aren't any cars or something), the walker will be blameless and the driver at fault - even though it's clearly, by any common sense observation, the walker's fault.

Thus furthering the aims of the left. In this case, making life miserable for car drivers (in the hope that they'll all ditch their cars and use public transport).

This is not a joke. This is happening for real in the UK.

Too black and white. Drivers who disregard pedestrians are just as bad as pedestrians who disregard motor vehicles.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's called not ignoring your "inner voice"

Some people have been taught or programmed to ignore this. They are told to be "free thinkin" (another leftist buzz word that means ignoring common sense)

That inner voice is the FORCE. As in, "may the force be with you." That's what we might all be better off opening up to or quieting down to hear. There are books on this.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Dakar

That runs contrary to everything most conservatives say. They complain about liberals thinking with their 'gut' or their emotions. They stress they use logic and reason.

Gut feelings take into account ALL your human senses to come to a conclusion that might defy reason or emotion alone.

Ask any Fortune 500 CEO how much he/she relies on gut feelings or instincts. Google it.

That's silly. You post either to try and get us to think, to try and inform us, to try and change out views.

Funny. But I have little problem ignoring most posters unless I'm interested for some reason in what they have to say. When Bono uses his position to influence change he does what he feels he must and his music has never been better.

When I'm making a genuine argument about something I know I'll be fooling around here and yelling and screaming and having fun or making a spectacle of myself before long and I hope I'm never boring. So, if you read my posts (and thanks to all who do) I'd like to think you get something out of it, one way or another. But the bottom line is, you do what you want.

What I'm talking about in THIS thread, for example, is that there are forces that are acting on American youth which youth (and many of the posters here) are not aware of. I am transparent (most of the time) and when you say I try to get you to think and I try to change your views, you KNOW I'm doing it. What I sometimes do is point out how OTHERS are doing it without your being aware of it.

Now, back to MacNN, compare that with SOME posters who make a habit of telling people how they should behave or post.

One even had the temerity to tell me not to use the word, FUZZIES!

Imagine that!

[andi*pandi]

if the point of the book is that the left has a propaganda machine, then HELLO. The right does also, this book being a small cog in that machine. I'm sure the middle has some kind of machine too, but it runs very quietly. Everyone has a propaganda machine.

I, unfortunately, do not. It's on my list for Christmakuh next year.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Too black and white. Drivers who disregard pedestrians are just as bad as pedestrians who disregard motor vehicles.

You entirely missed the point.

Don't worry - I know why you missed it. It's because the social engineering we've been on about for two pages is real, exists and has clouded your thoughts.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You entirely missed the point.

Don't worry - I know why you missed it. It's because the social engineering we've been on about for two pages is real, exists and has clouded your thoughts.

Thanks, nothing like being insulted for trying to have a discussion.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

if the point of the book is that the left has a propaganda machine, then HELLO.

It's beyond mere propaganda IMO.

[spatterson]

Another reason to move to Canada... lol, just kidding... but seriously, I'm sick and tired of these religious fanatics trying to overtake America.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Gut feelings take into account ALL your human senses to come to a conclusion that might defy reason or emotion alone.

I'll listen to emotion before I listen to my gut. But then again out of the few times I've ever had a gut feeling on something, almost everytime its been wrong. Good thing I've always ignored it.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

One even had the temerity to tell me not to use the word, FUZZIES!

Imagine that!

Heaven forbid someone would get upset over something derogatory.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Thanks, nothing like being insulted for trying to have a discussion.

Well, you asked how the removal of "common sense" had any bearing on real life. I gave you a situation which it affects. You turned it into some kind of bizarre driver safety thing.

It's not about what the driver should be doing.
It's not even about what the walker should be doing.

It's about how the removal of "common sense" affects the outcome of the event and furthers the social engineering experiment.

You've just demonstrated one of the effects of this social engineering - you lost focus on the issue and went onto a completely different one which was more politically correct. This is what they want you to do with everything they intentionally engineer - so that when a dissenter speaks out against "the man" they're immediately drowned out in a bunch of unrelated retorts from huge quantities of people.

It's happened already here in the UK. You can't mention "immigration" without someone calling you a racist, even if you were talking about white American immigrants. And it happens on this board - you can't talk about islam without vW jumping up and shouting "racist" (even though he himself isn't Arab).
Deflection is a very good way of avoiding answering awkward questions. Governments (and particularly leftist governments) know this. So they socially engineer to make sure there's a bunch of folks waiting to deflect any discussion with real substance which may make them look bad.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well, you asked how the removal of "common sense" had any bearing on real life. I gave you a situation which it affects. You turned it into some kind of bizarre driver safety thing.

It's not about what the driver should be doing.
It's not even about what the walker should be doing.

Well then I obviously got confused by your metaphor.

Originally Posted by Doofy

the social engineering experiment.

Conspiracy!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well then I obviously got confused by your metaphor.

It wasn't a metaphor - it was an example.

[Dakar]

Either way me = not getting it

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No they didn't. The policy in their manifesto was for a partial ban (i.e. food serving places only), not a full ban.

And the full ban was an backbench amendment - not the policy put forward by the government. They did allow a free vote, but there's nothing especially unusual about that.

It's a bit risky throwing allegations of 'BS' around if you appear not to understand how parliamentary procedure works.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I'll listen to emotion before I listen to my gut.

And there's the difference between conservatives and libs.

Conservatives trust their gut (i.e. everything except emotions).
Libs trust their emotions and that which their peer group tells them is cool.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And there's the difference between conservatives and libs.

Conservatives trust their gut (i.e. everything except emotions).
Libs trust their emotions and that which their peer group tells them is cool.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

And the full ban was an backbench amendment - not the policy put forward by the government. They did allow a free vote, but there's nothing especially unusual about that.

It's a bit risky throwing allegations of 'BS' around if you appear not to understand how parliamentary procedure works.

Oh, I understand how Blair's version of parliamentary procedure works perfectly. He runs stuff through the Lords to see how it sits then goes for the most oppressive option he thinks he can get away with.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No tax break = no incentive to live together = housing shortage.

Heh, if it takes a tax break for you to live with someone, then heterosexuals have taken the state of marriage as far down the road as they keep claiming homosexuals would.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

if the point of the book is that the left has a propaganda machine, then HELLO. The right does also, this book being a small cog in that machine. I'm sure the middle has some kind of machine too, but it runs very quietly. Everyone has a propaganda machine.

I, unfortunately, do not. It's on my list for Christmakuh next year.

That's funny a*p!

Actually, MY point in bringing the book to these pages is to underscore what I've been posting and getting grief for. The subtle messages being sent to America via our popular culture, specifically TV commercials.

For some reason the book produces the response I'd hoped for when I posted about Bowie, and Coke sip stealin and the kid thinking it cool if mom gets arrested. It's like NOW my perceptions have been validated and so you might be thinking, "well, maybe aw isn't as whack as we said before...or something."

Actually, all of these posts on values and subliminal/subtle messages being directed towards you has no probability of changing anything except to make you aware that this stuff is going on.

So, like I said before. Just do as you wish.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And there's the difference between conservatives and libs.

Conservatives trust their gut (i.e. everything except emotions).
Libs trust their emotions and that which their peer group tells them is cool.

I agree with Dr. Doofy!

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh, I understand how Blair's version of parliamentary procedure works perfectly. He runs stuff through the Lords to see how it sits...

That is actually a pretty concise summary of what the House is Lords is supposed to do! I know that's not the point you were trying to make, but well done anyway.

Originally Posted by Doofy

...then goes for the most oppressive option he thinks he can get away with.

Unfortunately you go on to get it completely wrong with the next sentence. The government - meaning the cabinet - didn't change it's bill following pressure from the backbenches and health secretary to change to supporting a full ban. The bill remained the same but a free vote was allowed. In which the following Conservative MPs also voted for a full ban!

David Amess (Southend West)
James Arbuthnot (Hampshire North East)
Tony Baldry (Banbury)
John Bercow (Buckingham)
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley)
Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
Tim Boswell (Daventry)
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West)
Julian Brazier (Canterbury)
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch)
Alistair Burt (Bedfordshire North East)
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells)
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire)
David Curry (Skipton & Ripon)
Mrs Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid)
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East)
David Evennett (Bexleyheath & Crayford)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
Ms Justine Greening (Putney)
John Greenway (Ryedale)
Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire North East)
Michael Jack (Fylde)
David Jones (Clwyd West)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham)
Robert Key (Salisbury)
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North East)
David Lidington (Aylesbury)
Peter Luff (Worcestershire Mid)
Anne Main (St Albans)
Patrick Mercer (Newark)
Anne Milton (Guildford)
James Paice (Cambridgeshire South East)
Michael Penning (Hemel Hempstead)
John Penrose (Weston-Super-Mare)
John Randall (Uxbridge)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
Lee Scott (Ilford North)
Andrew Selous (Bedfordshire South West)
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden)
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge & Malling)
Gary Streeter (Devon South West)
Shailesh Vara (Cambridgeshire North West)
Rob Wilson (Reading East)
Jeremy Wright (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sir George Young (Hampshire North West)

Damn lefties!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

The government - meaning the cabinet - didn't change it's bill following pressure from the backbenches and health secretary to change to supporting a full ban. The bill remained the same but a free vote was allowed.

Oh please. Do you really think Blair would have allowed a free vote if he didn't think he was gonna get it through?

Originally Posted by nath

In which the following Conservative MPs also voted for a full ban!

<snip>
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
<snip>

Bunch of fascists, the lot of them. I knew there was a reason I didn't vote Tory any more.
Must go kick Fabricant's arse for that and find out what the bloody hell he was up to - since I helped get the git elected in his first term and he wasn't a fascist back then.

[Rolling Bones]

It's the terrorists in suits.

[olePigeon]

I was expecting a thoughtful and heartfelt forward by Rush Limbagh and Hitler.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by spatterson

Another reason to move to Canada... lol, just kidding... but seriously, I'm sick and tired of these religious fanatics trying to overtake America.

What do you mean?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No tax break = no incentive to live together = housing shortage.

Yeah, I know. Married people sharing expenses. That's just crazy talk.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

What do you mean?

I think he's insinuating that, when the author says he wants the United States to adopt Christianity as the official relgion for everyone, that what the author reall means is that he wants the United States to adopt Christianity as the official relgion for everyone.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think he's insinuating that, when the author says he wants the United States to adopt Christianity as the official relgion for everyone, that what the author reall means is that he wants the United States to adopt Christianity as the official relgion for everyone.

Obviously, I have no problem with the country turning Christian as long as everyone has the freedom to worship as they wish. But that isn't what the book espouses.

And in the other thread I posted a set of 6 values that everyone could endorse which wasn't religious based or anything.

http://www.charactercounts.org/defsix.htm

Trustworthiness
Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends and country

Respect
Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements

Responsibility
Do what you are supposed to do • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your choices

Fairness
Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly

Caring
Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need

Citizenship
Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I was expecting a thoughtful and heartfelt forward by Rush Limbagh and Hitler.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

No they didn't. The policy in their manifesto was for a partial ban (i.e. food serving places only), not a full ban. You know that as well as I do so lay off the BS.

It was an open vote. MPs were not instructed to follow the party line, the vote was supported by MPs from all parties.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Strange how England never got a vote on smoking in Scotland and Wales yet Scotland and Wales got a vote on this English-only matter, no?
(Americans: This is like Alaska voting on something which affects only Colorado)

Wow. An RDF to rival Job's. All laws for England are decided in the House of Parliament, always have done. The regional assemblies have limited powers, it was decided by Parliament to allow the smoking vote to be decided locally.

Originally Posted by Doofy

No there isn't.

That's not what the BBC reports. The latest research suggest an 80% approval rating.


But never mind, each to their own. I love going out at night without coming home stinking of other people's smoke and I am damn glad that public spaces are smoke free over here.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And I know for absolute fact that the lefties in this country engage in social engineering/steering to suit their own ends.

Both sides social engineer

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Both sides social engineer

I won't speak for Doofy's supporting evidence, but when I posted about the subtle messages being conveyed in TV commercials it was pretty much denied by most posters who checked in.

You very automatically say that. But when I pointed out an example of potentially harmful influences being transmitted in TV spots, the hue and cry ran the gamut from me being called nutz, to questions of whether I knew it was the characters ACTING to it JUST BEING A HARMLESS COMMERCIAL.

And that was my point. It wasn't harmless. It DOES have an impact on the subconscious of American youth and APPARENTLY NONE of you are conscious of it.

But you can just say, oh, both sides do it. Well, where were you the other day?

I gotta run. TTYL!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

It was an open vote. MPs were not instructed to follow the party line, the vote was supported by MPs from all parties.

Blair doesn't give open votes unless he absolutely knows 100% that he's going to win.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Wow. An RDF to rival Job's. All laws for England are decided in the House of Parliament, always have done. The regional assemblies have limited powers, it was decided by Parliament to allow the smoking vote to be decided locally.

Yet the English smoking vote wasn't decided locally - it was decided nationally.

Americans: Here's how it works:
If it's a UK issue, all MPs are allowed to vote on it.
If it's a purely English issue, all MPs are allowed to vote on it.
If it's a purely Scottish issue, only Scots MPs are allowed to vote on it.
Fair?

Originally Posted by Mastrap

That's not what the BBC reports. The latest research suggest an 80% approval rating.

That research isn't representative. And why on earth are you linking to kiddie's pages? Here's a quote from one of their users in response to the question "Should smoking be banned in public?":

Yes! I hate it when you have to breathe in the smoke from someone walking in front of you on the street.
Will, 14, Lincoln

Wow. Major understanding going on there. Since the only place left for smokers to smoke will actually be the street, you're out of luck my wee little laddie. Perhaps you'd be better off if all the smokers could have their own smoking clubs. But they can't, so suck it up.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

But never mind, each to their own. I love going out at night without coming home stinking of other people's smoke and I am damn glad that public spaces are smoke free over here.

So you don't respect others' rights to have their own bars where they can smoke all they like? You want everywhere to be smoke free on the off-chance that you may one day decide to go in there? They could have left us with some smoking pubs.

Not that it matters anyways. By the time the ban comes in next year, nobody will be able to afford to go out.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Obviously, I have no problem with the country turning Christian as long as everyone has the freedom to worship as they wish. But that isn't what the book espouses.

You know what happens when you make an official relgion? Talk to Ireland.

No, but the author covers that the government should be allowed to endorse a specific religion inside the govnerment itself. Which is wrong. I would be comfortable with relaxing some laws. For example, I thought it was stupid to remove the 10 commandments from that federal building. I also think it's stupid to remove "In God we trust" from our currency. Who cares? It's not going to change anyone's mind one way or another.

But an official religion, or a government sponsored religion? I have a HUGE problem with that.

And in the other thread I posted a set of 6 values that everyone could endorse which wasn't religious based or anything.

Yes, I agree. So why do we have to bother with instituting an official religion?

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Americans: Here's how it works:
If it's a UK issue, all MPs are allowed to vote on it.
If it's a purely English issue, all MPs are allowed to vote on it.
If it's a purely Scottish issue, only Scots MPs are allowed to vote on it.
Fair?

No one across the pond cares.


PS...Is this turning political?

[Dakar]

Oh its been pretty charged from the get go.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You know what happens when you make an official relgion? Talk to Ireland.

No, but the author covers that the government should be allowed to endorse a specific religion inside the govnerment itself. Which is wrong. I would be comfortable with relaxing some laws. For example, I thought it was stupid to remove the 10 commandments from that federal building. I also think it's stupid to remove "In God we trust" from our currency. Who cares? It's not going to change anyone's mind one way or another.

But an official religion, or a government sponsored religion? I have a HUGE problem with that.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not interested in a STATE religion either. Although in fairness to the idea I must admit I've never given it ANY thought. But, I will put it on the list of things to think about in the coming days & weeks. Again, thanks for pointing this out.

Yes, I agree. So why do we have to bother with instituting an official religion?

Maybe as a Christian the author proposes a solution to what he sees are societal problems using the tools that are readily apparent to him, Biblical tools. I don't really know if this book is his attempt to address the ills of America by use of Christian principles or if he isn't actually trying to impose Christianity by use of the real problems he exposes.

Again, I must think about this. In the meantime I don't know how many people are aware of these 6 values but the nation would be better off if those who COULDN'T get behind a religion were at least to show support for and adopt the 6 values as rules to live by.

Please Lord, don't strike me down for saying that!

[thunderous_funker]

Here's the real Expose: There is an entire economy composed of people selling "conspiracy theories" about how some mythical entity known as "The Left" is trying subjugate everyone under some kind of yoke. Day after day, week after week, year after year they make their house payments (big house payments) blathering on about how they are being victimized by "The Left".

The truth is that "The Left" only exists in the minds of their core market and nothing more than a means of separating fools from their money.

Wanna know what kind of "social engineering" the pop culture is engaged in? Easy, they want you to BUY SHYTE. SHYTE YOU DON"T EVEN NEED.

The list of shyte includes sex, drugs and rock n roll. The kinds of things that some might consider "evil". It also includes books about how some people want to sell you "evil". And you can buy these books. And you don't even need them. And a huge marketing firm and publishing company and infotainment machine are all out to make you want to buy such books because you "need" to know that some people out there are manipulating your fears, desires, emotions to get you to buy shyte you don't even need.

Wanna know why there are elicit depictions of adultery or homosexuality on TV? Because some company paid a million dollar marketing company to learn that people who watch those shows might be willing to buy their products.

That same million dollar marketing company tells another bunch of companies what people watching The 700 Club want to buy.

Homos and Jesus. Both nicely packaged for mass consumption by market segments that have been scientifically investigated. Both peddled by million dollar marketing campaigns that hire psychologists and behaviorists and designed to appeal to emotions you aren't even fully conscious of. To create need for things you have no need of.

That's not to say you have no need of Homos or Jesus. That's not necessarily what's for sale (although sometimes they are). No, those are just tools to draw the correct market segment to sell the right kinds of cars, clothes, food, houses, books, movies, plastic food containers or whatever the hell else.

America isn't losing its values. In fact, it has vigorously maintained the one value that is purely American: making a buck. In fact, we've gotten so unbelievably good at making a buck that every time we come up against some kind of barrier (mores, ethics, traditions, perceptions, beliefs, whatever) to making lots of bucks, that barrier is very quickly removed. Not only does that allow for buck making, but it actually generates NEW avenues. Now you can make a buck lamenting how other people are making a buck.

So losening the censorship rules to allow for "Queer as Folk" creates a path for this schmuck to hawk his claptrap book telling you how a fictionalized account of some fairly harmless homos in Canada is actually the cause of everything from economic downturn, increased volcanic activity, terrorism or chronic halitosis. And our Pop Culture and Media are perfectly willing to sell both items to the people who want to buy them.

Its not a political thing. Its the Economy, stupid.

[Chuckit]

Wow, that endorsement list reads like a who's-who of who-needs-to-shut-up.

What I find interesting, though, is that he assumes "their parents' generation" was somehow smarter or that, because an idea was promoted, it must be incorrect (and that older values were not intentionally promulgated). Does he actually show that people are wrong when they say homosexuality is OK? This book gives off a strong air of preaching to the choir.

[thunderous_funker]

^^^^ ding ding ding

The "choir" in this case would the bevy of talking heads that somehow believes that all the foibles of the MTV generation are somehow because the makers of MTV sat around wonding how great it would be to spawn a nation of addle-brained, sex-addicted, freakishly materialistic malcontents with 30 second attention spans. And not only did MTV conscioulsy create such a thing (according to these talking heads) but that this was somehow all part of a grander agenda in service to some greater ideology (a "lefty" or "liberal" agenda).

Newsflash: MTV didn't have an ideology other than making fistloads of cash by catering to whatever purient interests got them there the fastest. They weren't libbies or social enginners and they didn't have a vison for America beyond making their stock split bi-weekly and moving to gated communities.