Amen!

Even then there were RINOs and cuckservatives trying to appeal to an imaginary golden mean between liberty and tyranny, and an elite media making use of them while secretly hating their guts.

@@CountArtha very well said

Looking forward to November 2020 elections with the hell of coronavirus 19 in the mix!

Build a time machine and change history.

@@jgalt308 A short story by Stephen King on that subject (about going back in time to see who killed JFK) inspired me to research the assassination. I dug for a couple of years and from there down a couple of smaller rabbit holes that led me to question "why do they want our guns?" That woulda began my walkaway story but it was years earlier. All my impressions of the left began to crumble rapidly and I realized the only thing I had been right about previously was how corrupt the establishment is as a whole. Amazing what an honest dig for the truth will do if your humble and not unafraid of what you discover.

@@amyjoyce2301 That truth is easy...this has been an illegitimate, unconstitutional, criminal government since 1939...unfortunately the number who understand this is small and those grasping the remedy and willing to act even smaller.

@@jgalt308 It escapes me why people like Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell didn't see it or why they or others don't talk about it. A couple of the rabbit holes I went into revealed some tricky, literal CT's which I admit really scared and black pilled me. Experiencing a serious illness allowed me to feel how horrible depleted hope feels like and each time it occurred I'd research like crazy to find some again. I think the lack of understanding you spoke of is in some cases an unwillingness to entertain it because of fear. I confided quite a bit with my husband so he'd grasp the importance of some preps he'd have to know about and he was speechless. When pressed he told me straight up - it scares him. And he's alpha! I am willing and know some others who are but as you said, 9/10 are either woke or blind. Why 1939 exactly?

@@amyjoyce2301 The supreme court caved to FDR's court packing threat in 38 ruling against most of the "new deal" programs and would have continued... as a result, the federal judicial system ceased operating in the subject matter jurisdiction of "law and equity" and began operating in the "fraudulently deceptive" statutory jurisdiction under the recodification of the USC and its CFR implementing regulations. No such "subject matter" jurisdiction exists in Article 3...and the only other jurisdictions that do, neither protect rights nor limit the powers of government as intended. The next step in the federal deception occurred in 1952 with the UCC and it's required "reservation of rights"...but this only applied to areas of "federal jurisdiction" and had to be adopted by the "several states"...a process which required until 1970 to complete. From the point all of government at every level became criminal. At the moment my main computer system is undergoing its annual cleaning and tune up which will not be completed until thursday...however if you do a search for UCC 1-308 or 1.207 you can read the applicable statutes that apply to federal and state jurisdictions. ( and possibly understand the nature of the fraudulent deception for your self. ) If not rest assured I shall post them and the analysis for you on Thursday and we c an continue from there if you wish....until then....

The real conservatives have left the building- to date.

Investigating different points of view is intelligent.... but once you discover the truth you must recognize it as truth and NOT merely a difference of opinion. Learn the difference between subjective opinions and objective truth.

Evangelicals like Georgeeee Bush? A rat has more brain or moral values.

@@whousa642 did I state GB is or was Evangelical?

@@AndreiStoen // No, I did.

It actually applies to your grossly uninformed comment.

I would hesitate to call Peterson's thinking healthy... He's a disintegrated mystical pragmatist. He's not in any way similar to Rand and about as far from an Objectivist as you can reach.

@Retired But Retro. and anyone?

I do love listening to Peterson, but I'd have to agree with the above comment. He's almost the opposite of an objectivist.

Except it's a term of Measurement and every example you have employed can be rendered precisely, by either weight or quantity. So get to it and stop being "intellectually" lazy.

yes... it is a measurement... this is a very common problem people of "extreme" stances generally have. those on the far side of the left and right tend to have a problem with "inductive reasoning" (understanding probability) and seeing things in black and white with no shades of grey. which is why they seem to hold such clearly nonsensical absolutist ideas. you seem to have it to such a degree you don't even understand the concept of relativity. That the idea of extremism is a measurement, a relative concept of measurement. should not be used because it is such is like saying people should not use the word fast. normally in most cases, the route cause of these sorts of beliefs comes from the general lack of ability to tell there is a spectrum of subjectivity. That things are either undebatable subjective ideas that only matter to the individual or that there are objective facts of the universe with nothing in between. obviously, this child-like understanding is fundamentally held by only those that struggle with basic concepts. But it is interesting how this can be easily analysed and "reduced to the absurd". I do agree with this video in the sense that people only use the word extremist to refer to someone because they are too afraid of calling them stupid.

@@riskingeuphoria So you don't understand the concept of "definition"??? You have a problem with "precision"? Understanding what is "empirical" and what is not? You think I have a problem with "relativity" based on my criticism...why? It's 100 per cent accurate, and you could have provided precise "measurements" of each of those items. Not to mention the fact that unless set in a "novel" it was "useless information" to begin with, and would be rendered more absurd had you actually provided the measurements. ( although the cat part produced a flashback of the fate of Gayle Hunnicut, in a movie so old I can't remember, while inspiring the wish, that if it were a fictional plot, your fate would be similar! ) Here you are commenting about " a range of subjectivity" regarding the philosophy of "objectivism" whose point is dismissing "subjectivity" altogether...because it serves no purpose of any kind, and is in your own words... a stupid comment. A range of subjectivity regarding the meaning of words makes the conversation pointless... and either ends up becoming an impasse regarding semantics...or totally meaningless, because none the words being used have a commonly understood meaning...and if social media has demonstrated anything it is that most humans are "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterate, unevolved talking hominids." who insist on sharing this with others of their kind. The result of this is the exchange of a whole lot of "nothing" and worse the technique of saying "nothing" is being employed by the "leaders" elected or not...to tap into this "range of subjectivity" ...to trigger an "emotional response"...that is "fact free". In terms of "reasoned intelligent thought"...this offers nothing productive regarding the potential outcome.

@@jgalt308 im saying that in post grad education in the study of psychology, philosophy and neuroscientce it was found that people of extremist mindsets tend to be mentally damaged. in a literal sense. their damage to the cyngula gyrus is correlated with their inability to use inductive reasoning. as I repeat, it is to see things in black and white with no shades of grey. that is, they literally cannot understand that everything is not mutually exclusive. That subjectivity and objectivity are not entirely separate. The most basic forms of logic are lost on them which is why they believe absolutist ideas that make very very little sense with small amounts of thought or a childlike socratic reductio ad absurdem.

@@riskingeuphoria You seem to be suggesting that applied to me, based on my first post. And seemed to have avoided anything relevant including the questions in my second. When speaking logically, reasonably and empirically, the range of subjectivity, whether inductive or reductive is more accurately presented as a range of probabilities...where as the "subjective" by definition has no relevance to that which is "objective reality" or the attempt to discover it. And how does any of this apply to Rand...and her insistence of precise meaning...or how easy it is to dismantle it? My favorite example of this is that it is impossible to use the word decimate and have it understood for exactly what it means. Other words that have been rendered meaningless...democracy, unconstitutional and unalienable rights, none of which are true or self evident in the objective sense. ( and capitalism ) How about this ..."Capitalism begins at conception." ( objective or subjective. ) All life is capitalist. All life is profit seeking and if possible seeks to store capital. ( the laws of nature ) Therefor one now has not only the objective meaning of capitalism, but also that of profit and capital...