Y'know, you really have no one but yourself to blame for all the reaction. You're NOT supposed to question the questioners. You're violating all kinds of free speech rights here. Natalie Maines told me so. ;)
-Dan
Posted on 10/10/2004 8:32:16 AM PDT by jmstein7
Black is Black
By Jonathan M. Stein
Honesty is clearly the best policy; that is not in question. However, broadcasting one's honesty isn't always the best politics -- sometimes, in fact, it is incredibly stupid.
There is no question that, in general, conservatives are more honest than their liberal counterparts. However, conservatives have a nasty habit of crowing about just how honest they are, often to their detriment. Conservatives know when they're right, when they're wrong, when they've done well, and when they've done badly. That doesn't mean that they have to stand on the rooftops and shout about it. Loudly letting liberals know when things are going badly for conservatives doesn't make liberals think "wow, gee, look how honest conservatives are!" It doesn't make liberals feel badly about themselves. On the contrary, it is incredibly stupid in that liberals wisely, and gladly, use it against conservatives. As liberal bloggers, and John Kerry, have demonstrated, they are only too gleeful to use Republican criticisms of Republicans against Republicans in the public debate.
Now, I'm not urging dishonesty; I'm certainly not advocating lies. All I am saying is that the liberals do not need any more free advice or any more free ammunition to use against Republicans and conservatives -- they already have plenty of that. All I am asking is that, as we move into the final weeks of an election that will determine the safety and security of all Americans going forward, a life or death election, if conservatives don't have anything nice to say about themselves or their candidates, then don't say anything at all. This can be boiled down to two simple words... if you don't have anything nice to say then shut up.
The consequences of not shutting up are clear; just look at what happened after the first debate, when things didn't go as well as we liked: we criticized, we grumbled, we despaired -- and the liberals fed off it, gained strength, re-energized their base, used it against us, and made some headway in the polls. This same mistake must not be repeated. If you don't like how things are going, that's fine -- just keep it to yourself. As is often said: "loose lips sink ships."
Alternatively, what conservatives should not do is what liberals do when things go badly for them: lie, deceive, and spin. Just look at what happened after the second debate, when President Bush made a comeback. Democrats and other liberals went beyond merely keeping quiet about their losses; that would have been fine. No -- they actually went out of their way to convince others that the opposite was true -- that their loss was actually a win. That is dishonest, and it is something conservatives should never do.
What is truly frightening about all this isn't the lying, spin, or deception. What is truly frightening is that, to liberals, the lies, spin, and deception actually became their truth! They really believed what they were saying! Look no further than the rhetoric at the Democratic Underground. This is frightening because it is further evidence of just how far the left has gone down the Orwellian path.
In 1984, George Orwell describes a trio of though-control devices that make this self-deception possible -- and orthodox. The concepts are crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink. In 1984, any thought that went against that which was considered "orthodoxy" was considered a crime. Thus, citizens were trained to consciously stop themselves, stop their though processes, before their very thoughts strayed beyond what was considered orthodox. This concept was known as crimestop, i.e. consciously stopping unorthodox, "criminal" though (crimethink) before it "polluted" the mind. The left-wingers have clearly mastered this, especially considering the things they have gone on record saying about Senator Kerry's debate performance. As their negative thoughts about Kerry formed, they simply, and clearly, stopped thinking. Scary.
Of course, crimestop is necessary when the beginnings of adverse thought have already entered the mind. Thus, to remedy the effects of some tainted thought, it is necessary to convince one's self that the opposite of those thoughts is really true. If it is bad to think that black is actually black, and you started to think about that, but stopped short, then one must convince one's self that black is actually white. If black is a bad thought and white is a good thought, you must convince yourself that black is white. This technique is known as blackwhite. If a Democrat had started to think that John Kerry gave a dismal performance, that Democrat must quickly, and consciously, convince himself that Kerry was fabulous, despite reality. Blackwhite.
The final step in this conscious self-deception is paradox resolution and reconciliation. The process of convincing one's self that black is white is a conscious one. In the back of one's mind, one knows that black is black. So, it is necessary to convince one's self that although one knows that black is black, black can also be white in fact, black can be black and white at the same time! It is necessary to believe that a non sequitur can be logical, and that, in fact, it has always been logical. Not only did John Kerry do well, despite the fact that he did badly, but the fact is that he had been doing well all along. And, by gosh, he actually did vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it! Doublethink.
This is how liberals lie so effectively -- because they really believe it, and they have mastered believing it, and they never believed otherwise. A contradiction can be consciously true and false and reconciled, and, in fact, it has always been true. They have mastered these Orwellian thought-control techniques and if they assume power, they will make sure that everyone else masters them as well.
Frightening.
Give me a break. Many of us have had ancestors who spilled blood to create and protect our freedoms.
Just how well would they have done if they marched through the streets riddled with enemy homes while loudly bitching about what they saw as weaknesses in the upcoming battle plans? Yes, we have the freedom of speech... but that doesn't negate our freedom to behave intelligently and responsibility to refrain from actions that could hurt the country.
Oh, you like to play dress up. That's sweet.
Run along.
I think this has more to do with evolution. One can determine which direction that they want to project their voice, but cannot determine from which direction sound will come from.
Not to be an ass, but this has been my response to this statement since 1968.
You are a troll.
Yesterday, you were adamently opposed to Sinclair running the documentary on Kerry because you were "afraid it would backfire on us".
Now you state you don't care if Bush loses because of our own actions.
Get lost.
Discretion in your context WOULD be suppression, since someone who thought that GW failed in the first debate would refrain from saying so; would seek euphemisms for "failure;" and would thereby pander to tactics at the expense of honesty.
It's one thing to be "discreet" about a poster's spelling, another about h/h opinions.
And the "sky is falling" aspect doesn't apply here--I don't remember anyone saying "President-elect Kerry."
Not from where I can see... folks who deliberately hand socialists ammunition while during national elections don't seem to have much regard for preserving the liberties those socialists are trying to destroy.
So, if you don't air your complaints and bitching about the President, then a good man will die?
All that will die is the second term of a good man, while an evil puppet of George Soros gets his first.
Well-said!
Sorry, Dan, but that isn't the case.
I've seen more threads than I care to remember linked to FR and the crying and sad postings of desperation.
You can tell when I've seen one, because I link back to FR and and go nuclear on the thread (okay, I admit it makes me look like I'm bi-polar, but I have a reason to kill the thread).
You made some excellent points that needed to be said. Thank you.
-Dan
Which is right and which is wrong?
I submit they are all right, depending on subject and circumstance, for example:
In other words, to everything, there is a season. The decision one makes is personal and dependent on character, experience, relationship with others, and relationship with God.
And now to specifically address whether we should be criticizing the President, his campaign or others on our side or to remain silent (to be or not to be), we must consider that this election will determine the course of the war against terror and affects the safety of our families, friends, and country. Therefore, we must ask the following questions:
Each of us must make our own decisions in this matter. I doubt that JimRob will censor or ban anyone on this matter either way.
JMHO
RebelTex
LOL!
You're welcome :)
If you were a soldier, would you publish rants about weaknesses in an upcoming battle strategy in a newspaper regularly read by the enemy?
If not, why would you publish rants about weaknesses in an upcoming election strategy on the most popular political website in the world, also regularly read by the enemy?
Bump to your #154... beautifully stated.
Great post (#154) - thank you.
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.