(08-11-2023, 12:05 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(08-11-2023, 09:30 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: NYC4jags





I personally AM just as free as I was under those presidencies. 
I am.
I'm not defending it  - because there is zero debate. 

Now, whether or not we, as a people are losing ground to big money influence and the various shadow entities you attribute to steering laws and regulations, well, that still remains to be seen. 

Like so many of our dialogue it ends with you being certain about things which you cannot prove.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you you are definitely wrong.
I'm an arrogant prick, but I draw the line somewhere. LOL
But as of now, several of your assertions about these powers influencing gov and taking our freedoms are not verifiable. 

BTW - "you guys are blind" and "how can you not see it" and "why am I wasting my time" don't make the case any stronger.

Fair enough. I have a strong background in this stuff. I've been around it. It's an enjoyable hobby. I've had lots of free time to pursue it when I was a stay-at-home dad. I spent more time than I care to admit reading about progressive philosophy particularly. I care about the literature, both scientific and philosophical. The light started going on for me a few years back, and it all seems so obvious now. It's borderline maddening that other people can't see it... like one of those little pictures we used to stare at at the mall until something started to show up. I probably am too quick to get frustrated at times. 

I'm just saying this to give you insight to an outside perspective, no to be a jerk, but the bolded (to a guy like me) just reads like you went down the rabbit hole and developed a paranoia while you were down there. I get that you learned a lot in the process. You're obviously well read on the topic. Not trying to diminish that. 

It gets frustrating to argue in good faith and have people skim past the most important parts in pursuit of a talking point. It creates more work for me, and, quite frankly, it's often easier or more fulfilling just to be condescending to the people who aren't getting it. What good is it to argue in good faith if people genuinely don't try to understand the argument? Sometimes it's easier just to tell them they are blind. My bad.

All good. FWIW - I'm usually not skimming past anything. Often - the bits I refute often correlate to some of the bits you may assume I've skimmed - and in my mind don't require the attention as refuting one negates the other.
Sometimes I don't address points you may have considered integral because I sometimes they seem ridiculous, or I have already addressed it in a prior thread or convo, or finally - just don't have the time to open the can of worms (as we touched on yesterday I think) I'm not trying to rob your counterpoint of its thunder or anything. 

Honestly, I am not immune from that type of ignorance. I can list several of my previous beliefs that have shattered one by one, but I wouldn't have been able to admit that at the time. Occupy Wall Street was right, kind of. No blood for oil was right. Kind of. Republicans (generally speaking) do not care about creating opportunities for the individual. Kind of. In the moment when we were having these arguments (the left and the right), could anyone indisputably prove they were right? History verified it, but, imo, the left was appropriately making the right calls and I couldn't see it.  I'm glad you've decided to vote for Bernie Sanders. 

Well-meaning people, like me or you or Marty, have a difficult time adapting our worldview in real time. It's like we get stuck in a paradigm that is incapable of being shifted without some kind of radical event that shatters the previous worldview (I mean, this is basic psychology, but it's still weird to see). This can only be done by constantly questioning your belief system or waiting long enough until something shatters your paradigm.