I am so sick of these whiny little brats complaining on Facebook about how hard their pathetic little lives are.
And I wish they could have known my parents. My Dad was born in 1898, when travel was by horse and carriage that could travel 50 miles a day, and not a heated, air conditioned vehicle that could travel 1000 miles a day. No radio. Most families did not yet have a telephone. No computers, video games or TV.
No school buses to take them to school on a cold, wintry day. Chores before the sun rose, and more chores until the sun set. At the age of seven he worked in a woolen mill to help support the family.
In 1917 Dad joined the Marines and was off to France in WWI. During that same period, both my parents lost many loved ones from the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed 60 million people across the globe.
They suffered the Great Depression and 12 years of sacrifice, hunger and cold. There were no food stamps, unemployment benefits or other welfare.
And then WWII broke out and my Dad signed up in the Army - and back to France, where many comrades died.
Two of their 9 children died before the age of 5 because doctors, hospitals and medicine were not like they are now.
After the war, I was born. And from that day until my parents passed away, I never ONCE heard them complain about anything, least of all how tough life was for them. They never mentioned it.
Yet, today's youth think they have it tough just because they ran out of minutes on their cell, or Mom would not let them dress like a hooker for their Prom.
What they need is a dose of reality - how the world REALLY is when we do not step in to make things easier and better.
/
Friday, November 30, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
War On Christmas - How Liberals Will Win
The mainstream media refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that liberals and atheists are waging a war on Christmas for several years. And the reason is fairly obvious - Christmas is representative of Christianity, and it is Christianity that keeps the majority of the people from embracing sinful activities. And liberals want to push for legalization of those activities. So, in order to make gains in gay marriage, man/boy love, drug use etc., liberals need to minimalize Christianity.
But to the point of this post - they will win. They will win because they are using a very sneaky tactic that no one seems to notice. And this tactic gives them the cover of legitimacy.
In simple terms, they first find a way to cause a controversy. Then they use the anger inherent in the controversy as an excuse to eliminate that which caused the controversy.
For example, last Christmas Governor Lincoln Chaffee (RI) declared that the capitol Christmas Tree would henceforth be called the "Holiday Tree". He knew that would generate controversy and anger, and that is exactly what he wanted. Because that anger and controversy gives him a legitimate excuse this year to shut down the tree lighting ceremoney altogether. Note that he did not simply shut down the tree lighting first-hand, because he would have been crucified for that. No, he first created a controversy, then uses that controversy to give him the excuse to cancel any Christmas festivities at the capitol.
The capitol in Orgegon did something quite similar. For decades there was a traditional Nativity scene at the capitol. Two years ago the liberal governor allowed some pretty nasty groups to set up some pretty nasty displays alongside the Nativity - knowing it would cause controvery. Today, there are NO religious displays at the capitol because the governor no longer allows displays - blaming the controvery.
Are you beginning to see a pattern? If so, you are among the very first.
We will be seeing more such "controversies" created artificially by liberals and atheists for the sole purpose of "ending the controvery" by ending all public displays of Christianity. And they will likely win because most people are not noticing the subterfuge being perpetrated, nor do they understand the reason behind it.
/
But to the point of this post - they will win. They will win because they are using a very sneaky tactic that no one seems to notice. And this tactic gives them the cover of legitimacy.
In simple terms, they first find a way to cause a controversy. Then they use the anger inherent in the controversy as an excuse to eliminate that which caused the controversy.
For example, last Christmas Governor Lincoln Chaffee (RI) declared that the capitol Christmas Tree would henceforth be called the "Holiday Tree". He knew that would generate controversy and anger, and that is exactly what he wanted. Because that anger and controversy gives him a legitimate excuse this year to shut down the tree lighting ceremoney altogether. Note that he did not simply shut down the tree lighting first-hand, because he would have been crucified for that. No, he first created a controversy, then uses that controversy to give him the excuse to cancel any Christmas festivities at the capitol.
The capitol in Orgegon did something quite similar. For decades there was a traditional Nativity scene at the capitol. Two years ago the liberal governor allowed some pretty nasty groups to set up some pretty nasty displays alongside the Nativity - knowing it would cause controvery. Today, there are NO religious displays at the capitol because the governor no longer allows displays - blaming the controvery.
Are you beginning to see a pattern? If so, you are among the very first.
We will be seeing more such "controversies" created artificially by liberals and atheists for the sole purpose of "ending the controvery" by ending all public displays of Christianity. And they will likely win because most people are not noticing the subterfuge being perpetrated, nor do they understand the reason behind it.
/
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Marco Rubio - How Old Is The Earth?
Earlier this week a GQ interviewer asked Senator Marco Rubio how old the Earth is, since Rubio had already stated he belives in Creationism.
This is a bogus ploy by the loony left to try and pidgeonhole Creationists as idiots who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Creation only took 6 days.
Neither is the case - and the true Scriptures never make any such claims.
The current "Bible" is a mere (and very loose) translation from the original Hebrew language. The translation was done at the behest of King James. And whenever the translators could not quite "fit" a proper translation, they made their own.
For example, the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in SIX TIMES, not six days. In ancient Hebrew, the same word (yom) is used to denote any period of time, from a moment to an eon. In fact, in Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." The translators needed to choose a specific timeframe in Genesis, so they chose DAY. But in reality, it could have been a month, year, milennia, age or eon. But nowhere does the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in 6 days.
As to how old the Earth is, according to the Bible, no one knows. But we do know that a liberal professor in the 1970's used the "six days" reference to determine the Earth was only 6,000 years old according to the Bible, and used his formula to discount Creationism.
In reality, and only assuming the professor was correct in his formula but incorrect about the 6 days, then it could be hypothesized that it was Adam & Eve that were created 6,000 years ago - not the Earth.
So, the liberals, atheists and other lunatics who choose to use the bogus "6 days" assumption only prove their own ignorance.
Further, and just to set the record straight, nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve were the first humans. On the contrary, they were only the first INTELLIGENT, MODERN humans. According to Scripture, God had already created man in His image during the 4th "day" (time). Adam was created after God finished, and took a "day" of rest. As further evidence, when Adam's son Cain was cast out, the Scripture says he went to the land of Nod, where "he took a wife." So, the Bible apparently recognizes that some form of Man was already resident on Earth. Still, libs and atheists insist on saying otherwise, because they need to discount Creationism in order to destroy Christianity that they may pursue their lives of sin and gluttony without recrimination.
The next time some liberal or atheist moron hits you with the "6 days", or "6,000 year old Earth" crap, you can now set them straight.
/
This is a bogus ploy by the loony left to try and pidgeonhole Creationists as idiots who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Creation only took 6 days.
Neither is the case - and the true Scriptures never make any such claims.
The current "Bible" is a mere (and very loose) translation from the original Hebrew language. The translation was done at the behest of King James. And whenever the translators could not quite "fit" a proper translation, they made their own.
For example, the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in SIX TIMES, not six days. In ancient Hebrew, the same word (yom) is used to denote any period of time, from a moment to an eon. In fact, in Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time (yom) to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." The translators needed to choose a specific timeframe in Genesis, so they chose DAY. But in reality, it could have been a month, year, milennia, age or eon. But nowhere does the original Scriptures say the Earth was created in 6 days.
As to how old the Earth is, according to the Bible, no one knows. But we do know that a liberal professor in the 1970's used the "six days" reference to determine the Earth was only 6,000 years old according to the Bible, and used his formula to discount Creationism.
In reality, and only assuming the professor was correct in his formula but incorrect about the 6 days, then it could be hypothesized that it was Adam & Eve that were created 6,000 years ago - not the Earth.
So, the liberals, atheists and other lunatics who choose to use the bogus "6 days" assumption only prove their own ignorance.
Further, and just to set the record straight, nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam and Eve were the first humans. On the contrary, they were only the first INTELLIGENT, MODERN humans. According to Scripture, God had already created man in His image during the 4th "day" (time). Adam was created after God finished, and took a "day" of rest. As further evidence, when Adam's son Cain was cast out, the Scripture says he went to the land of Nod, where "he took a wife." So, the Bible apparently recognizes that some form of Man was already resident on Earth. Still, libs and atheists insist on saying otherwise, because they need to discount Creationism in order to destroy Christianity that they may pursue their lives of sin and gluttony without recrimination.
The next time some liberal or atheist moron hits you with the "6 days", or "6,000 year old Earth" crap, you can now set them straight.
/
Liberals vs Israel
OK, so I have been Tweeting how liberals are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. And some people are telling me I am wrong. But I am not.
On MSNBC, the so-called "journalist" claimed Israel was "over-reacting" and killing too many Palestinians in their attacks. She failed to mention that it was the Palestinians who have fired nearly 800 missiles into Israel since January, without provocation, and with Israel taking no action in retaliation until now.
As further evidence, the following post (a direct quote) is but one of many by liberal loons, found on AOL, Yahoo and Huffington Post:
On MSNBC, the so-called "journalist" claimed Israel was "over-reacting" and killing too many Palestinians in their attacks. She failed to mention that it was the Palestinians who have fired nearly 800 missiles into Israel since January, without provocation, and with Israel taking no action in retaliation until now.
As further evidence, the following post (a direct quote) is but one of many by liberal loons, found on AOL, Yahoo and Huffington Post:
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
December 21, 2012 - Doomsday or Hoax?
The title of this post may be somewhat misleading since the answer to the question is not all that relevant. What will be, will be. The real question is, are you prepared for either?
I was listening to some so-called scientists who went to great lengths to debunk the Doomsday idea. And it struck me that these "intelligent" people will be the first to perish if, in fact, a doomsday scenario were to occur, as they are so arrogant in their "knowledge" that they make no preparation for anything outside their little sphere of understanding.
Here's the point - no one KNOWS what will, or will not occur. No one. So what we have are three kinds of people - those who dismiss doomsday events and make no preparation in case they are wrong; those who believe doomsday is a real threat and prepare accordingly, and those, like myself, who are educated enough to believe doomsday is not likely, yet wise enough to know the unexpected should be expected, so we prepare, just in case.
If nothing happens, all three groups of people will survive. But if the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, the know-it-all intelligentsia who made no preps will be the ones to perish.
So, who are the smart ones? Certainly not those who think they are so smart that they need not prepare.
One thing my Pop always said - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and you'll do OK. The Boy Scouts motto added, "Be Prepared".
As for myself, I have been around long enough to know that eventually the world will suffer a variety of catastrophic events, ranging from the not-so-bad to the truly devastating. Because that is life. In fact, I would bet the farm that we will suffer either a world famine, world war or world pandemic within the next 50 years or so, and millions of us will face smaller, yet deadly events within the next 5 years on the Katrina or Indonesian tsunami scale. While that may not be "doomsday" on a global level, it would certainly be doomsday for the millions who will perish.
Events like Hurricane Sandy are only devastating because the folks simply were not prepared. Even when they knew it was coming 7 days in advance, they did nothing. Imagine if all the gas stations had generators for pumping gas? That, alone would have alleviated much of the suffering.
When an unforeseen event hits, will your family be among the victims, or the survivors?
/
I was listening to some so-called scientists who went to great lengths to debunk the Doomsday idea. And it struck me that these "intelligent" people will be the first to perish if, in fact, a doomsday scenario were to occur, as they are so arrogant in their "knowledge" that they make no preparation for anything outside their little sphere of understanding.
Here's the point - no one KNOWS what will, or will not occur. No one. So what we have are three kinds of people - those who dismiss doomsday events and make no preparation in case they are wrong; those who believe doomsday is a real threat and prepare accordingly, and those, like myself, who are educated enough to believe doomsday is not likely, yet wise enough to know the unexpected should be expected, so we prepare, just in case.
If nothing happens, all three groups of people will survive. But if the proverbial crap hits the proverbial fan, the know-it-all intelligentsia who made no preps will be the ones to perish.
So, who are the smart ones? Certainly not those who think they are so smart that they need not prepare.
One thing my Pop always said - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, and you'll do OK. The Boy Scouts motto added, "Be Prepared".
As for myself, I have been around long enough to know that eventually the world will suffer a variety of catastrophic events, ranging from the not-so-bad to the truly devastating. Because that is life. In fact, I would bet the farm that we will suffer either a world famine, world war or world pandemic within the next 50 years or so, and millions of us will face smaller, yet deadly events within the next 5 years on the Katrina or Indonesian tsunami scale. While that may not be "doomsday" on a global level, it would certainly be doomsday for the millions who will perish.
Events like Hurricane Sandy are only devastating because the folks simply were not prepared. Even when they knew it was coming 7 days in advance, they did nothing. Imagine if all the gas stations had generators for pumping gas? That, alone would have alleviated much of the suffering.
When an unforeseen event hits, will your family be among the victims, or the survivors?
/
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Not-So-Secret Secret To A Happy Marriage
It is so very sad. Of every 5 marriages, 3 end up in broken homes, broken hearts, broken dreams. How is that possible when most couples start out so very much in love?
My wife and I have been married 21 years. And every day has been better and happier than the one before. We are closer now than when we wed. And we owe it all to our little "scret", that really is not much of a secret. In fact, it is quite obvious, as long as we do not allow life to distract us.
I'm not sure how to explain it, or what to name it, but I can tell you what it is we make it a point to do - every day.
Upon waking, we have our morning java, 'cuz our eyes don't open and our brains do not function without that burst of caffeine to jump-start everything. And before I can see the bottom of the cup, I have silently asked myself the following questions:
1) What can I do today to make my wife smile?
2) What can I do today to make her life easier?
3) What can I do today to make her life fuller, happier?
4) What can I do today that will make he realize how important she is to me?
By doing this, I make her the center of my world, which is where every spouse should be to the other. And by answering those questions, and doing those things (pour her coffee, start the laundry, tell a joke, sweep her off her feet), I get the joy of making her happy, and she, in turn, does the same for me. It is something we agreed to do those many long years ago.
We then spend the day doing all those things that life requires of us, but we never forget that they are NOT life, and they are only important as long as we are happy. So, day-to-day stuff, though necessary, is secondary. My wife and I are ALWAYS first in each other's hearts and minds.
No day has ever passed without holding each other, looking deeply into each other's eys, and saying, "I love you." And we kiss. Deeply. With passion.
And when the day is done and darkness falls over the bedroom, we each pray. We pray to thank the Lord for the day we just had, and the love we share. We pray that He gives us yet another, tomorrow.
It is just sad that so many people forget to do the little things they did when they first fell in love. They allow work to come first. Their "schedule" becomes more important than taking a few moments to hug, to kiss. They allow life to get in the way of thier love.
/
My wife and I have been married 21 years. And every day has been better and happier than the one before. We are closer now than when we wed. And we owe it all to our little "scret", that really is not much of a secret. In fact, it is quite obvious, as long as we do not allow life to distract us.
I'm not sure how to explain it, or what to name it, but I can tell you what it is we make it a point to do - every day.
Upon waking, we have our morning java, 'cuz our eyes don't open and our brains do not function without that burst of caffeine to jump-start everything. And before I can see the bottom of the cup, I have silently asked myself the following questions:
1) What can I do today to make my wife smile?
2) What can I do today to make her life easier?
3) What can I do today to make her life fuller, happier?
4) What can I do today that will make he realize how important she is to me?
By doing this, I make her the center of my world, which is where every spouse should be to the other. And by answering those questions, and doing those things (pour her coffee, start the laundry, tell a joke, sweep her off her feet), I get the joy of making her happy, and she, in turn, does the same for me. It is something we agreed to do those many long years ago.
We then spend the day doing all those things that life requires of us, but we never forget that they are NOT life, and they are only important as long as we are happy. So, day-to-day stuff, though necessary, is secondary. My wife and I are ALWAYS first in each other's hearts and minds.
No day has ever passed without holding each other, looking deeply into each other's eys, and saying, "I love you." And we kiss. Deeply. With passion.
And when the day is done and darkness falls over the bedroom, we each pray. We pray to thank the Lord for the day we just had, and the love we share. We pray that He gives us yet another, tomorrow.
It is just sad that so many people forget to do the little things they did when they first fell in love. They allow work to come first. Their "schedule" becomes more important than taking a few moments to hug, to kiss. They allow life to get in the way of thier love.
/
Monday, November 12, 2012
What Do ObamaCare, The Economy, The Environment, Immigration & Math Have In Common?
At first it seems to be a head-scratcher - what could ObamaCare, the economy, the environment, immigration and math have in common?
The common denominator is that liberals do not understand any of them, even though they are core issues that liberals advocate for. And here is proof of the pudding...
Let's take immigration for starters. Liberals want Granny to undergo full-body scans and frisking to fly from one American location to another, but they have no problem with illegal immigrants - some of which are murderers or terrorists - to be able to just saunter across our border without so much as a "hello". If you do not see the irony and stupidity in that, you are probably a liberal.
The environment is a favorite of liberals - whether it's global warming, or preventing necessary development for a population that is expanding (partly because of illegal immigrants) in order to save some stupid insect we can live without. I say, let mosquitos go extinct, and take the roaches with you. And the rats. But here is what liberals do not understand - every time they try to "protect" the environment, they actually do even greater harm.
Take ethanol, one of their favorite "green" strategies. It ruins car engines. It requires 1.8 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol production uses up the supply of corn, making almost all foods more expensive - cows, pigs, chickens etc - all consume corn. And that means even your ice cream and pizza starts costing more (cheese comes from corn-fed cows, folks).
Now Los Angeles liberals want a "meatless Monday", and PETA libs want a meatless America. But if we stop consuming meat, a coupla things go wrong. Over 90% of organic fertilizer comes from the manure of meat animals. No meat animals means no fertlizer for veggies. We starve. And only meats have a full complement of amino acids necessary for life. And, of course, think of the devastation to the economy as meat farmers go out of business, and hundreds of thousands who depend on them for their jobs become unemployed.
Liberals want an end to hunting, but it is hunters who provide the funds for preserving game. And if hunting stops, many game animals will over-populate and starve, since Mankind has pretty much eliminated all other natural predators.
If you think liberals have an intelligent grip on the environment, you must be a liberal.
And then there is the economy. Let's tackle math at the same time, since they go hand in hand. Liberals believe an economy works from the bottom up, or the middle out. What they never comprehend is that you cannot DISTRIBUTE anything until you first CREATE it. And the poor and middle-class do not create wealth - the poor get theirs handed to them from Uncle Sam, and the middle class earns theirs from the upper class. Wealth is ALWAYS created at the top, so the only direction it can go is DOWN.. I have proven that many times in earlier posts. And Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, also proved it. In short, don't expect to get a good-paying job from a poor person.
As further evidence that liberals fail at math, only a liberal would believe you can take $716 billion from Medicare and spend it twice, which is what ObamaCare does. Or rather, tries to.
So now we are at ObamaCare. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy, in so many ways. But I'll limit this to just a couple of the dumber points. Like fining businesses that do not provide insurance for full-time employees. Since insuring an employee costs up to $15,000/year per person, most small businesses (you know, the ones that employ over 80% of the rest of us) cannot afford that. So, they have to cut full-time workers back to part-time. And America becomes a nation of part-time workers, all of whom fall into poverty because they now only get 28 hours a week.
And it gets worse - when those businesses are forced into hiring only part-timers, liberals piss and moan, and blame the business rather than the ObamaCare that caused the problem. They threaten to boycott Pappa John's, Target, WalMart, Westinghouse, McDonald's, Applebees and others, simply because those businesses have been victimized by the ObamaCare that liberals love.
Liberals will not blame ObamaCare for forcing people out of work. They would rather blame the victims, and punish them. And when they do that, the businesses lose even MORE money, so guess what? Now they are forced to either raise prices, or lay off people. And again the dumb liberals blame the businesses for raising prices or laying folks off. They fail to understand that businesses cannot print money the way Uncle Sam can.
If you think it makes sense to punish the job creators rather than the regulations that put their businesses at risk, you must be a liberal.
One more thing - liberals also have a big problem differentiating between WORDS and ACTION. To a liberal, they are the same. When Obama says "I am willing to compromise", liberals actually believe that is the same as having compromised. The statement is enough. Obama does not need to compromise - he only needs to SAY it. Just like what he did with Hurricane Sandy. He shows up, says, "America is with you. Call, and we'll answer in 15 minutes", then he goes to play golf, not to be seen in NY/NJ again. And no one answers in 15 minutes (or at all). And the people still suffer, weeks later. But to liberals, Obama was a "Sandy Hero". It was enough for him to simply SAY he was going to help, and in the mind of a liberal, that was the same as helping.
It isn't!
When Obama says he wants to compromise, he does not mean HE will compromise. He only means that he wants REPUBLICANS to compromise. He does not realize that compromise means BOTH sides share the burden. For example, in the very next sentence after saying he was willing to compromise, Obama said he would veto any bill that did not include tax increases on anyone earning over $250k. How is that compromise, when he starts out the conversation with an ultimatum?
Only a liberal would consider that a compromise.
In all fairness, I should state that liberals cannot help themselves. Science has proven that conservatives think primarily with the analytical side of the brain that favors stronger math and logic skills, while liberals think primarily with the more creative right side of the brain, which is why liberals use imagery (granny pushed over the cliff, or "The Life of Julia") instead of logic. And the "creative" side of the brain is the side that makes it easy to lie - and even begin to BELIEVE the lies.
Unfortunately for America, we are under the rule of those who lack common sense logic and the ability to balance a budget. We are ruled by morons who draw pictures and insist on driving us to bankruptcy for the sake of phony "social justice."
/
The common denominator is that liberals do not understand any of them, even though they are core issues that liberals advocate for. And here is proof of the pudding...
Let's take immigration for starters. Liberals want Granny to undergo full-body scans and frisking to fly from one American location to another, but they have no problem with illegal immigrants - some of which are murderers or terrorists - to be able to just saunter across our border without so much as a "hello". If you do not see the irony and stupidity in that, you are probably a liberal.
The environment is a favorite of liberals - whether it's global warming, or preventing necessary development for a population that is expanding (partly because of illegal immigrants) in order to save some stupid insect we can live without. I say, let mosquitos go extinct, and take the roaches with you. And the rats. But here is what liberals do not understand - every time they try to "protect" the environment, they actually do even greater harm.
Take ethanol, one of their favorite "green" strategies. It ruins car engines. It requires 1.8 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol production uses up the supply of corn, making almost all foods more expensive - cows, pigs, chickens etc - all consume corn. And that means even your ice cream and pizza starts costing more (cheese comes from corn-fed cows, folks).
Now Los Angeles liberals want a "meatless Monday", and PETA libs want a meatless America. But if we stop consuming meat, a coupla things go wrong. Over 90% of organic fertilizer comes from the manure of meat animals. No meat animals means no fertlizer for veggies. We starve. And only meats have a full complement of amino acids necessary for life. And, of course, think of the devastation to the economy as meat farmers go out of business, and hundreds of thousands who depend on them for their jobs become unemployed.
Liberals want an end to hunting, but it is hunters who provide the funds for preserving game. And if hunting stops, many game animals will over-populate and starve, since Mankind has pretty much eliminated all other natural predators.
If you think liberals have an intelligent grip on the environment, you must be a liberal.
And then there is the economy. Let's tackle math at the same time, since they go hand in hand. Liberals believe an economy works from the bottom up, or the middle out. What they never comprehend is that you cannot DISTRIBUTE anything until you first CREATE it. And the poor and middle-class do not create wealth - the poor get theirs handed to them from Uncle Sam, and the middle class earns theirs from the upper class. Wealth is ALWAYS created at the top, so the only direction it can go is DOWN.. I have proven that many times in earlier posts. And Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Milton Friedman, also proved it. In short, don't expect to get a good-paying job from a poor person.
As further evidence that liberals fail at math, only a liberal would believe you can take $716 billion from Medicare and spend it twice, which is what ObamaCare does. Or rather, tries to.
So now we are at ObamaCare. This is the ultimate in liberal lunacy, in so many ways. But I'll limit this to just a couple of the dumber points. Like fining businesses that do not provide insurance for full-time employees. Since insuring an employee costs up to $15,000/year per person, most small businesses (you know, the ones that employ over 80% of the rest of us) cannot afford that. So, they have to cut full-time workers back to part-time. And America becomes a nation of part-time workers, all of whom fall into poverty because they now only get 28 hours a week.
And it gets worse - when those businesses are forced into hiring only part-timers, liberals piss and moan, and blame the business rather than the ObamaCare that caused the problem. They threaten to boycott Pappa John's, Target, WalMart, Westinghouse, McDonald's, Applebees and others, simply because those businesses have been victimized by the ObamaCare that liberals love.
Liberals will not blame ObamaCare for forcing people out of work. They would rather blame the victims, and punish them. And when they do that, the businesses lose even MORE money, so guess what? Now they are forced to either raise prices, or lay off people. And again the dumb liberals blame the businesses for raising prices or laying folks off. They fail to understand that businesses cannot print money the way Uncle Sam can.
If you think it makes sense to punish the job creators rather than the regulations that put their businesses at risk, you must be a liberal.
One more thing - liberals also have a big problem differentiating between WORDS and ACTION. To a liberal, they are the same. When Obama says "I am willing to compromise", liberals actually believe that is the same as having compromised. The statement is enough. Obama does not need to compromise - he only needs to SAY it. Just like what he did with Hurricane Sandy. He shows up, says, "America is with you. Call, and we'll answer in 15 minutes", then he goes to play golf, not to be seen in NY/NJ again. And no one answers in 15 minutes (or at all). And the people still suffer, weeks later. But to liberals, Obama was a "Sandy Hero". It was enough for him to simply SAY he was going to help, and in the mind of a liberal, that was the same as helping.
It isn't!
When Obama says he wants to compromise, he does not mean HE will compromise. He only means that he wants REPUBLICANS to compromise. He does not realize that compromise means BOTH sides share the burden. For example, in the very next sentence after saying he was willing to compromise, Obama said he would veto any bill that did not include tax increases on anyone earning over $250k. How is that compromise, when he starts out the conversation with an ultimatum?
Only a liberal would consider that a compromise.
In all fairness, I should state that liberals cannot help themselves. Science has proven that conservatives think primarily with the analytical side of the brain that favors stronger math and logic skills, while liberals think primarily with the more creative right side of the brain, which is why liberals use imagery (granny pushed over the cliff, or "The Life of Julia") instead of logic. And the "creative" side of the brain is the side that makes it easy to lie - and even begin to BELIEVE the lies.
Unfortunately for America, we are under the rule of those who lack common sense logic and the ability to balance a budget. We are ruled by morons who draw pictures and insist on driving us to bankruptcy for the sake of phony "social justice."
/
Thursday, November 8, 2012
What It Takes To Be A Democrat
I am reproducing this from one of my other blogs a few years ago - enjoy!
To Be A Good Democrat...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
To Be A Good Democrat...
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that "gender roles are artificial" but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters who support & protect nature don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
18. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
19. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .
20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
21. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
22. You have to believe that only liberals have freedom of speech, while all others should be shouted down.
23. You have to believe that it is necessary to subject Americans to embarrassing searches at airports in the name of national security, but it's not a problem for illegal immigrants to sneak across the borders by the millions without any controls whatsoever.
24. You have to believe that people who retire and collect Social Security are unpatriotic because they "suck up tax money", but it's just fine to use that same tax money to support illegal immigrants.
25. You have to believe it is a crime for a republican to commit perjury for a crime that never even occured (Libby), but it is perfectly acceptable for a democrat to be involved in bribery (Jefferson), illicit sex (Clinton), or leaving a girl to drown in your car (Kennedy).
/
Lilly Ledbetter & Women's Rights - A Reasonable Solution
A sane & reasonable method of bringing more women into the GOP fold:
1) First and foremost, do NOT allow the Democrats to produce a bill designed to benefit women by offering things like "equal pay", because they will intentionally load the bill with crap they know the GOP cannot swallow (like they did with the "Lilly Ledbetter Act"). because they will then declare that it was those nasty republicans that kept women from fair pay. Democrats are NOT interested in fair pay for women, or they would not load the bill with crap. They are only interested in making Republicans look bad. It's all about politics.
2) Republicans should present an "equal pay for equal work" bill for ALL people of every gender, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity that does not include any other non-related garbage that would prevent Democrats from having an excuse to vote against it. A straight, virgin bill, BEFORE the Democrats offer their own loaded bill.
3) Make sure every American is AWARE of the Republican effort to get equality for women, and are so determined to do so that they presented a "pure" bill.
It is then up to the Democrats to either pass the Republican bill, or shoot it down. The onus is upon them, not the Republicans.
Put the Democrats on the defense on this and other issues.
/
1) First and foremost, do NOT allow the Democrats to produce a bill designed to benefit women by offering things like "equal pay", because they will intentionally load the bill with crap they know the GOP cannot swallow (like they did with the "Lilly Ledbetter Act"). because they will then declare that it was those nasty republicans that kept women from fair pay. Democrats are NOT interested in fair pay for women, or they would not load the bill with crap. They are only interested in making Republicans look bad. It's all about politics.
2) Republicans should present an "equal pay for equal work" bill for ALL people of every gender, race, sexual orientation and ethnicity that does not include any other non-related garbage that would prevent Democrats from having an excuse to vote against it. A straight, virgin bill, BEFORE the Democrats offer their own loaded bill.
3) Make sure every American is AWARE of the Republican effort to get equality for women, and are so determined to do so that they presented a "pure" bill.
It is then up to the Democrats to either pass the Republican bill, or shoot it down. The onus is upon them, not the Republicans.
Put the Democrats on the defense on this and other issues.
/
Gay Marriage - A Reasonable Solution
Republicans can easily garner the support of a large part of the gay community by presenting a clean bill that gives both sides of the issue most of what they want, in a way that extricates both parties - and the government - from the issue.
1) All adult couples, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to consummate their love with a formal contract would have to do so via a Civil Union - even heterosexuals. (Bear with me - that is only the first part.) This Civil Union would be licensed by the state, and could be performed by anyone with the legal authority to do so. This Civil Union would provide EVERY united couple with all the same benefits and protections currently afforded through marriage.
2) "Marriage" would (and should) be the sole jurisdiction of the church, separate from Civil Unions. Marriage would not grant any legal benefits - it would simply be what it was created to be - a union in the presence of God, to be sanctified by the church.
3) Any adult couple, regardless of sexual orientation, may ALSO marry provided a) they are already united via a Civil Union, and b) the church will perform the ceremony. If a church chooses not to do so, they do not have to. In such case, the couple may seek marriage through a different church.
For those who are concerned with 'gay marriage" on religious grounds, you would not have to condone it. But if a church performs the ceremony, then it must be accepted, even if not supported by some individuals. The moral terpitude of an individual is not threatened by what a church deems to be acceptable.
Whether or not a couple marries should be totally up to the church. But EVERY adult couple should be entitled to a legal union that provides all the benefits and protections currently provided by marriage.
/
1) All adult couples, regardless of sexual orientation, who want to consummate their love with a formal contract would have to do so via a Civil Union - even heterosexuals. (Bear with me - that is only the first part.) This Civil Union would be licensed by the state, and could be performed by anyone with the legal authority to do so. This Civil Union would provide EVERY united couple with all the same benefits and protections currently afforded through marriage.
2) "Marriage" would (and should) be the sole jurisdiction of the church, separate from Civil Unions. Marriage would not grant any legal benefits - it would simply be what it was created to be - a union in the presence of God, to be sanctified by the church.
3) Any adult couple, regardless of sexual orientation, may ALSO marry provided a) they are already united via a Civil Union, and b) the church will perform the ceremony. If a church chooses not to do so, they do not have to. In such case, the couple may seek marriage through a different church.
For those who are concerned with 'gay marriage" on religious grounds, you would not have to condone it. But if a church performs the ceremony, then it must be accepted, even if not supported by some individuals. The moral terpitude of an individual is not threatened by what a church deems to be acceptable.
Whether or not a couple marries should be totally up to the church. But EVERY adult couple should be entitled to a legal union that provides all the benefits and protections currently provided by marriage.
/
Immigration - A Reasonable Solution
There is a sane and reasonable way for Republicans to address the issue of illegal immigration, and help bring immigrants (including Latinos) into the GOP fold.
1) First, seal the borders to prevent a sudden and vast influx that cannot be controlled
2) Next - underage children of illegal immigrants should be granted the opportunity to participate in the naturalization process provided that upon graduating high school (a must) they either a) complete college, or b) serve in the active U.S. Armed Forces, or c) spend 4 years in the Peace Corps or other acceptable community service. If they fail to graduate high school, they may apply for the guest worker/green card program (see #3).
3) Adult illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years may remain as a guest worker with a green card for as long as they remain gainfully employed to the degree that they are self-supporting (no welfare). After another 5 years these workers would be permitted to participate in the naturalization process, to become citizens.
/
1) First, seal the borders to prevent a sudden and vast influx that cannot be controlled
2) Next - underage children of illegal immigrants should be granted the opportunity to participate in the naturalization process provided that upon graduating high school (a must) they either a) complete college, or b) serve in the active U.S. Armed Forces, or c) spend 4 years in the Peace Corps or other acceptable community service. If they fail to graduate high school, they may apply for the guest worker/green card program (see #3).
3) Adult illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years may remain as a guest worker with a green card for as long as they remain gainfully employed to the degree that they are self-supporting (no welfare). After another 5 years these workers would be permitted to participate in the naturalization process, to become citizens.
/
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
How To Win ANY Election (Repubs take note)
Though we are a center-right nation, we have twice elected a far-left liberal to the Oval Office (Obama), and far-left lunatics like Elizabeth Warren to the Senate. It becomes obvious that there is a disconnect with the electorate when so many far-left people are given power in a center-right country. In fact, even today as I write this 64% of Americans say we are on the wrong track - so HOW and WHY did those who put us there get re-elected?
To win any election there are a few simple things to consider. Each will be explained in detail, below.
1) Understand the audience (average voters). The average voter today is often not well educated, not well informed and/or inexperienced (as in under 25). The average voter does not have the time to "keep up" with the news, and is often pre-occupied with entertainment and celebrity
2) Play to the largest share of the audience by reducing your message to its lowest common denominator. If your message is geared to the best educated and well-informed, your message will only reach 1/3 of the voters. But a message geared to the lesser informed will reach both groups - the informed, and the non-informed, which doubles the audience.
3) Make your message entertaining (see #1), as well as informative. If you do not entertain, you will not hold their attention, and hence will not reach them with your message
4) Sell the sizzle, not the steak. People do not buy "features" - they buy the BENEFITS that those features offer. Know what benefits the average voter wants, then find a way to help them get it YOUR way.
Republicans need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing
conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded
electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great
ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES
designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack
in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas,
but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a
whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they
make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in
their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality.
Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple
pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful
discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans
pushing Granny over a cliff?
In order to have your message resound with the greatest number of people, you must first create the message in such a way as to be understood by the least of them. Intelligent people will understand simple explanations, but simple people will not understand intellectual explanations. Use the KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Once your message has been simplified and made easily understood by even the least educated, least informed and inexperienced, it is imperative that the message be presented in an entertaining fashion. Jesus, Aesop and Reagan all understood this principle. Jesus taught by using parables that entertained, yet instructed. Aesop used fables to do the same. And Reagan was "the Great Communicator" because he used stories, humor, and helped people draw a mental picture they would remember. So, instead of "political ads" on YouTube, create an entertaining video that could go viral, and inform people while entertaining them.
As an example, if you want people to understand the economy better (a subject that BORES most), connect it to a modern, updated version like I did with this children's story about "The Little Red Hen". Entertain while teaching.
And never forget that people are bored by features, but interested in benefits. I learned this while investing in real estate. If I told a buyer that "This home is close to schools", all I would get is a nod and a yawn. But if I told them that "Mom can sleep late because the home is close to schools", THAT got their attention.
Liberals win elections because they understand the value of selling benefits and using imagery. They use pictures, entertainment and stories to sell their agenda. Instead of a lengthy, boring dissertation on how we can fix Medicare, they simply showed a Republican pushing Granny over a cliff. Instead of a lengthy discussion on the role of government in our lives, liberals produced "The Life of Julia." As they say - one picture is worth a thousand words.
If you doubt that last statement, think about Hurricane Sandy. More than 1/3 of voters stated that Sandy affected their vote. Even though President Obama actually did nothing to help the victims, everyone saw the photo op of him being praised by powerhouse Republican Governor Chris Christie. The picture told voters that Obama was "presidential" and also "praised by Republicans." That is what made an impression on voters - not the long-term misery that Obama was not addressing.
We live in a culture where most voters simply cannot be reached unless they are being entertained, and the message is kept simple and creates imagery. Take that to the bank - either appeal to the audience, or lose them.
Democrats won the woman vote because they offered BENEFIT. They won Latinos because the offered BENEFIT. Republicans need to repackage their message to offer a similar or better benefit, which could be provided the Republican way. An example - Democrats offer hungry people a fish (benefit). Republicans offer to teach hungry people how to fish (feature). Republicans should emphasize that by teaching them how to fish (feature) they will never be hungry again (benefit). Get it? Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Finally, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to
successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give
up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange
for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $2,000 for a home
if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
So there you have it - the secret to winning any election. It's called COMMUNICATION. And talking is not communication unless the audience is listening, and can easily understand your message.
/
Going Forward - What Conservatives Must Do
The 2012 election pointed out some serious flaws in our system that has resulted in choices that are, at the very least, dubious. Though we are a center-right nation, we have twice elected a far-left liberal to the Oval Office, and far-left lunatics like Elizabeth Warren to the Senate. It becomes obvious that there is a disconnect with the electorate when so many far-left people are given power in a center-right country. In fact, even today as I write this 64% of Americans say we are on the wrong track - so HOW and WHY did those who put us there get re-elected?
This post, I hope, will be a wake-up call to us all, because it will take all of us, not just a Romney or a Reagan, to fix what is wrong.
Listen up! ONE example: A full 42% of voters polled said Hurricane Sandy affected their vote, as they saw Obama being patted on the back by Republican Governor Christie. It does not matter that Obama has DONE NOTHING for Sandy victims - all that seemed to count was the PERCEPTION that was presented by that one photo op that Christie was dumb enough to provide.
This shows that many people are so ignorant of what is really going on that even a simple, misleading statement or photo can sway their vote. In other words, they are UNINFORMED, ignorant, foolish and can easily be led like lemmings.
If conservatives want to win elections and put this country back on track (assuming it is not too late), ALL conservatives need to do their part. Here are some things we must begin doing:
1) If there is one thing I learned selling real estate, it's that people do not buy FEATURES. They buy BENEFITS. They could care less if a house is near schools. What they care about is that Mom can sleep late because they live near the schools. Get it?
We need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas, but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality. Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans pushing Granny over a cliff?
2) Conservatives need to build a synopsis of their goals, in order of importance. Some would call this a PLATFORM. Then we need to choose our fights - do not waste time and resources fighting for the minor points that are not all that important, or those that are not shared by a majority of the people. Concentrate on how we are ALIKE, not how we are different.
Again, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $3,000 for a home if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
3) Conservatives need to learn how to make the other guy THINK he has won something worthwhile. Seek out things that are important to liberals, but not all that important to conservatives, and let them win on those points as long as you win on your bigger point.
4) Of great importance, conservatives should never forget that liberals hold conservatives to a MUCH higher standard than they do other liberals, so we need to deeply vet our candidates, to reduce the chance that a scandal will cost us the seat.
5) Conservative politicians need to shut up on issues that are not important to the platform - do not stick your foot in your mouth with personal beliefs, as did Akin and Mourdock. Liberals can get away with that (their lower standards), but conservatives cannot, and must control what comes out of their mouths.
6) Conservatives need to present themselves and their ideas in a way that gets them into the national liberal media. The media strives to subdue anything that is pro-conservative, so we need to approach the media differently. One thing conservatives could do is create YouTube videos that are fun and entertaining (granny over the cliff), so that they go viral. When that happens, the media cannot ignore it, and even if they do, millions still see the video and learn something of value.
Jesus was the perfect example - he understood that most people shut off their ears and brains when you preach to them, but they listen - and learn - intently when you tell them an entertaining story. Jesus won people over with his parables. Aesop taught life's lessons through his fables. Conservatives need to do the same.
If conservatives want to take back our country, we ALL need to start teaching others the truth, not by preaching, but by entertaining, memorable stories and mind-pictures. People react more to emotion than to intellect, and you cannot teach anyone anything if you cannot get them to listen.
Stop selling features - sell BENEFITS. Stop talking about great plans and start presenting the folks with IMAGES they can hold onto that also get your ideas across. And be more entertaining in how you present your ideas - use parables, fables, YouTube, cartoons...
Reagan was entertaining. He was funny. He used stories to teach us. He used imagery. After all, he was an actor, and that was his strength. That is how Reagan won 49 states, and why he was called "the great communicator". He talked to people, and taught them, by appealing to them on their own level, not on his own level.
Winning has never been easy, but it becomes easier when we understand the audience we are playing to.
/
This post, I hope, will be a wake-up call to us all, because it will take all of us, not just a Romney or a Reagan, to fix what is wrong.
Listen up! ONE example: A full 42% of voters polled said Hurricane Sandy affected their vote, as they saw Obama being patted on the back by Republican Governor Christie. It does not matter that Obama has DONE NOTHING for Sandy victims - all that seemed to count was the PERCEPTION that was presented by that one photo op that Christie was dumb enough to provide.
This shows that many people are so ignorant of what is really going on that even a simple, misleading statement or photo can sway their vote. In other words, they are UNINFORMED, ignorant, foolish and can easily be led like lemmings.
If conservatives want to win elections and put this country back on track (assuming it is not too late), ALL conservatives need to do their part. Here are some things we must begin doing:
1) If there is one thing I learned selling real estate, it's that people do not buy FEATURES. They buy BENEFITS. They could care less if a house is near schools. What they care about is that Mom can sleep late because they live near the schools. Get it?
We need to advertise the benefits, not the features, for electing conservatives. We need to create PICTURES for the small-minded electorate, not just words. Conservatives are good at offering great ideas and plans, but liberals are good at drawing SIMPLE PICTURES designed to appeal to EMOTIONS, not intellect (which 38% of people lack in any quantity). The uninformed do not pay attention to grand ideas, but they will always be attracted to a pretty picture. Bear in mind - a whopping 38% of the electorate have no clue what is going on, and they make choices based not on reality, but on the pictures they have in their minds. To them, a photo-op is not just perception - it is reality. Hence, conservatives need to start presenting their ideas with simple pictures that appeal to a person's emotions.
Case in point: which do you think is more effective - a thoughtful discussion on a plan to save Medicare, or a visual of Republicans pushing Granny over a cliff?
2) Conservatives need to build a synopsis of their goals, in order of importance. Some would call this a PLATFORM. Then we need to choose our fights - do not waste time and resources fighting for the minor points that are not all that important, or those that are not shared by a majority of the people. Concentrate on how we are ALIKE, not how we are different.
Again, as a real estate investor I learned the biggest secrets to successful negotiations. One of those secrets is to be willing to give up nickels for dimes. Be willing to give up something little in exchange for something bigger. I would offer to pay an extra $3,000 for a home if the seller agrees to pay half the closing costs.
Choose your battles wisely, and do not let the liberals draw you into battles on small issues.
3) Conservatives need to learn how to make the other guy THINK he has won something worthwhile. Seek out things that are important to liberals, but not all that important to conservatives, and let them win on those points as long as you win on your bigger point.
4) Of great importance, conservatives should never forget that liberals hold conservatives to a MUCH higher standard than they do other liberals, so we need to deeply vet our candidates, to reduce the chance that a scandal will cost us the seat.
5) Conservative politicians need to shut up on issues that are not important to the platform - do not stick your foot in your mouth with personal beliefs, as did Akin and Mourdock. Liberals can get away with that (their lower standards), but conservatives cannot, and must control what comes out of their mouths.
6) Conservatives need to present themselves and their ideas in a way that gets them into the national liberal media. The media strives to subdue anything that is pro-conservative, so we need to approach the media differently. One thing conservatives could do is create YouTube videos that are fun and entertaining (granny over the cliff), so that they go viral. When that happens, the media cannot ignore it, and even if they do, millions still see the video and learn something of value.
Jesus was the perfect example - he understood that most people shut off their ears and brains when you preach to them, but they listen - and learn - intently when you tell them an entertaining story. Jesus won people over with his parables. Aesop taught life's lessons through his fables. Conservatives need to do the same.
If conservatives want to take back our country, we ALL need to start teaching others the truth, not by preaching, but by entertaining, memorable stories and mind-pictures. People react more to emotion than to intellect, and you cannot teach anyone anything if you cannot get them to listen.
Stop selling features - sell BENEFITS. Stop talking about great plans and start presenting the folks with IMAGES they can hold onto that also get your ideas across. And be more entertaining in how you present your ideas - use parables, fables, YouTube, cartoons...
Reagan was entertaining. He was funny. He used stories to teach us. He used imagery. After all, he was an actor, and that was his strength. That is how Reagan won 49 states, and why he was called "the great communicator". He talked to people, and taught them, by appealing to them on their own level, not on his own level.
Winning has never been easy, but it becomes easier when we understand the audience we are playing to.
/
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The True Cost Of Ignorance - Choosing Not To Vote
I was talking with a neighbor yesterday, and asked if he was going to vote. He went into a long tirade about how it doesn't matter; that nothing will ever change; how one person is as bad as the other. Blah, blah, blah...
The most frightening aspect of that conversation was the stark reality that there are a lot of folks out there who are just as ignorant as my neighbor. People who don't believe they can be party to effecting positive changes.
When Barry said "one person cannot make a difference", I pointed out that one man changed all of civilization forever - and we will celebrate his birth next month. I also mentioned people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill...yes, one person CAN make a difference.
He said, "Sure - but they had the power to make changes."
And I asked, "Where do you think they got that power? From the little people, like you and me, who GAVE them that power."
A great person can make great changes. But even the little guys can make changes, as long as they pull together. Maybe I can never hope to change the world, but if millions of people like me get together, we can certainly move mountains.
One man could not put us on the moon. But thousands working together did accomplish that great feat.
And that is the point - change for the better requires ALL of us to participate. If you opt out, as Barry has, then that weakens our chances of making this a better world.
Don't opt out - regardless of your beliefs or party affiliation, please - GET OUT AND VOTE! As Jefferson once so aptly stated, "Everyone gets the government they deserve." If you do not participate, you WILL get what you deserve.
/
The most frightening aspect of that conversation was the stark reality that there are a lot of folks out there who are just as ignorant as my neighbor. People who don't believe they can be party to effecting positive changes.
When Barry said "one person cannot make a difference", I pointed out that one man changed all of civilization forever - and we will celebrate his birth next month. I also mentioned people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill...yes, one person CAN make a difference.
He said, "Sure - but they had the power to make changes."
And I asked, "Where do you think they got that power? From the little people, like you and me, who GAVE them that power."
A great person can make great changes. But even the little guys can make changes, as long as they pull together. Maybe I can never hope to change the world, but if millions of people like me get together, we can certainly move mountains.
One man could not put us on the moon. But thousands working together did accomplish that great feat.
And that is the point - change for the better requires ALL of us to participate. If you opt out, as Barry has, then that weakens our chances of making this a better world.
Don't opt out - regardless of your beliefs or party affiliation, please - GET OUT AND VOTE! As Jefferson once so aptly stated, "Everyone gets the government they deserve." If you do not participate, you WILL get what you deserve.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I would ask anyone who sides with Hamas just two questions:
1) When was the last time Israel beheaded people, or shot unarmed people in the back of the head, then drag their bodies around from speeding vehicles? (Hamas are barbarians, Israeli's are civilized)
2) Just how many missiles hitting targets on American soil would be enough to get you to want America to fight back, and would you think we were the aggressors if we did?