OT: The Partisan Mind…..

[Ricechex]

Good post. And, Brian, you definitely are of one side.

[scaredyclassic]

I just don’t think I’m partisan because I just think I’m too dumb to actually know anything.

[scaredyclassic]

I just don’t think I’m partisan because I just think I’m too dumb to actually know anything.

[scaredyclassic]

I just don’t think I’m partisan because I just think I’m too dumb to actually know anything.

[scaredyclassic]

I just don’t think I’m partisan because I just think I’m too dumb to actually know anything.

[scaredyclassic]

I just don’t think I’m partisan because I just think I’m too dumb to actually know anything.

[sd_matt]

I just watched this on youtube about the Quigley Formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY&feature=related

Part 7 is funny in how he relates the Dems and Reps to a WWE wrestling match. On a similar note you will hear Jerry Doyle (am 760) call it the “Country Club”

The parties tend to be moderate towards the middle in their actions….but how much of that is conspiracy and how much of that is getting reelected?

The video is definitely an interesting watch…I don’t agree with all of it but I definitely don’t disagree with all of it either.

If you have a partisan mentality you had best not watch this video with an open mind….well as if you ever would…he he. Ignorance is bliss.

[sd_matt]

I just watched this on youtube about the Quigley Formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY&feature=related

Part 7 is funny in how he relates the Dems and Reps to a WWE wrestling match. On a similar note you will hear Jerry Doyle (am 760) call it the “Country Club”

The parties tend to be moderate towards the middle in their actions….but how much of that is conspiracy and how much of that is getting reelected?

The video is definitely an interesting watch…I don’t agree with all of it but I definitely don’t disagree with all of it either.

If you have a partisan mentality you had best not watch this video with an open mind….well as if you ever would…he he. Ignorance is bliss.

[sd_matt]

I just watched this on youtube about the Quigley Formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY&feature=related

Part 7 is funny in how he relates the Dems and Reps to a WWE wrestling match. On a similar note you will hear Jerry Doyle (am 760) call it the “Country Club”

The parties tend to be moderate towards the middle in their actions….but how much of that is conspiracy and how much of that is getting reelected?

The video is definitely an interesting watch…I don’t agree with all of it but I definitely don’t disagree with all of it either.

If you have a partisan mentality you had best not watch this video with an open mind….well as if you ever would…he he. Ignorance is bliss.

[sd_matt]

I just watched this on youtube about the Quigley Formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY&feature=related

Part 7 is funny in how he relates the Dems and Reps to a WWE wrestling match. On a similar note you will hear Jerry Doyle (am 760) call it the “Country Club”

The parties tend to be moderate towards the middle in their actions….but how much of that is conspiracy and how much of that is getting reelected?

The video is definitely an interesting watch…I don’t agree with all of it but I definitely don’t disagree with all of it either.

If you have a partisan mentality you had best not watch this video with an open mind….well as if you ever would…he he. Ignorance is bliss.

[sd_matt]

I just watched this on youtube about the Quigley Formula.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN_LYk1nDEY&feature=related

Part 7 is funny in how he relates the Dems and Reps to a WWE wrestling match. On a similar note you will hear Jerry Doyle (am 760) call it the “Country Club”

The parties tend to be moderate towards the middle in their actions….but how much of that is conspiracy and how much of that is getting reelected?

The video is definitely an interesting watch…I don’t agree with all of it but I definitely don’t disagree with all of it either.

If you have a partisan mentality you had best not watch this video with an open mind….well as if you ever would…he he. Ignorance is bliss.

[CA renter]

[quote=CONCHO]And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.[/quote]

I’ll probably get slammed for this “conspiracy theory,” but I’ve long thought that our cultural obsession with team/spectator sports has been encouraged by those who gain from adversarial relationships among the populace.

Having only two parties makes thought control especially easy, and we are trained to believe that we must belong to one side or another. We’re not “good” Democrats or Republicans if we don’t defend and vote for all the politicians who “belong to our side.”

It’s almost as though people are specifically trained from their earliest years to form adversarial teams and relationships, and that they are supposed to “support their team/side” without wavering or any hesitation. Loyalty is encouraged, and we aren’t supposed to question the intentions of “our side.”

Look at how people behave WRT spectator sports, they get violent and fight one another over a *game*! It’s easy to take people like this and turn them into warrior robots who “fight for their side” without ever thinking about what their “side” really represents, and whether or not it’s beneficial to them or society, in general.

I’ve never been into adversarial sports, and can’t even begin to comprehend the mindset. I’ve also never felt wed to any political party, and, likewise, cannot understand the mindset of those who defend “their party” no matter how badly they’ve managed things. I really wish we could aboloish the party system, and instead, vote for the individual people who have the highest level of integrity, are the most capable/intelligent negotiators, and who best represent our individual interests, and the best interests of society.

[CA renter]

[quote=CONCHO]And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.[/quote]

I’ll probably get slammed for this “conspiracy theory,” but I’ve long thought that our cultural obsession with team/spectator sports has been encouraged by those who gain from adversarial relationships among the populace.

Having only two parties makes thought control especially easy, and we are trained to believe that we must belong to one side or another. We’re not “good” Democrats or Republicans if we don’t defend and vote for all the politicians who “belong to our side.”

It’s almost as though people are specifically trained from their earliest years to form adversarial teams and relationships, and that they are supposed to “support their team/side” without wavering or any hesitation. Loyalty is encouraged, and we aren’t supposed to question the intentions of “our side.”

Look at how people behave WRT spectator sports, they get violent and fight one another over a *game*! It’s easy to take people like this and turn them into warrior robots who “fight for their side” without ever thinking about what their “side” really represents, and whether or not it’s beneficial to them or society, in general.

I’ve never been into adversarial sports, and can’t even begin to comprehend the mindset. I’ve also never felt wed to any political party, and, likewise, cannot understand the mindset of those who defend “their party” no matter how badly they’ve managed things. I really wish we could aboloish the party system, and instead, vote for the individual people who have the highest level of integrity, are the most capable/intelligent negotiators, and who best represent our individual interests, and the best interests of society.

[CA renter]

[quote=CONCHO]And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.[/quote]

I’ll probably get slammed for this “conspiracy theory,” but I’ve long thought that our cultural obsession with team/spectator sports has been encouraged by those who gain from adversarial relationships among the populace.

Having only two parties makes thought control especially easy, and we are trained to believe that we must belong to one side or another. We’re not “good” Democrats or Republicans if we don’t defend and vote for all the politicians who “belong to our side.”

It’s almost as though people are specifically trained from their earliest years to form adversarial teams and relationships, and that they are supposed to “support their team/side” without wavering or any hesitation. Loyalty is encouraged, and we aren’t supposed to question the intentions of “our side.”

Look at how people behave WRT spectator sports, they get violent and fight one another over a *game*! It’s easy to take people like this and turn them into warrior robots who “fight for their side” without ever thinking about what their “side” really represents, and whether or not it’s beneficial to them or society, in general.

I’ve never been into adversarial sports, and can’t even begin to comprehend the mindset. I’ve also never felt wed to any political party, and, likewise, cannot understand the mindset of those who defend “their party” no matter how badly they’ve managed things. I really wish we could aboloish the party system, and instead, vote for the individual people who have the highest level of integrity, are the most capable/intelligent negotiators, and who best represent our individual interests, and the best interests of society.

[CA renter]

[quote=CONCHO]And this is why the Quigley Formula is so effective. Never more than about 20% of the population at any time is able to think outside of the two boxes. Another way of saying it is that only about 20% of the people are willing to consider that their side might be in the wrong. About 80% of the population, therefore, can be counted on to think in a rigid, predictable manner; their team is always right. By maintaining a very near 50/50 ratio between the two teams, wiggling back and forth every few years, a very predictable outcome is assured. No one gets enough time to become completely disillusioned with “their side” since it isn’t allowed to stay in control for too long. Once a side is out of power, the 80% blind followers can be counted on to blame the other side for all of their problems.

Whoever came up with this thing was really smart. Evil, but really really smart.[/quote]

I’ll probably get slammed for this “conspiracy theory,” but I’ve long thought that our cultural obsession with team/spectator sports has been encouraged by those who gain from adversarial relationships among the populace.

Having only two parties makes thought control especially easy, and we are trained to believe that we must belong to one side or another. We’re not “good” Democrats or Republicans if we don’t defend and vote for all the politicians who “belong to our side.”

It’s almost as though people are specifically trained from their earliest years to form adversarial teams and relationships, and that they are supposed to “support their team/side” without wavering or any hesitation. Loyalty is encouraged, and we aren’t supposed to question the intentions of “our side.”

Look at how people behave WRT spectator sports, they get violent and fight one another over a *game*! It’s easy to take people like this and turn them into warrior robots who “fight for their side” without ever thinking about what their “side” really represents, and whether or not it’s beneficial to them or society, in general.

I’ve never been into adversarial sports, and can’t even begin to comprehend the mindset. I’ve also never felt wed to any political party, and, likewise, cannot understand the mindset of those who defend “their party” no matter how badly they’ve managed things. I really wish we could aboloish the party system, and instead, vote for the individual people who have the highest level of integrity, are the most capable/intelligent negotiators, and who best represent our individual interests, and the best interests of society.

[Author]

Posts