Jump to content
Paulding.com

Donald Trump aka John Miller.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No I am not ..my husband is a grown up and stands for his mistakes I doubt if Hillary gave Bill permission for the things he did. So no this is a issue between Hillary and Trump. And sure what Bill di

Yes, with either Trump or Clinton.

Hopefully you've noticed by now that I'm not a Trump fan.   -BUT-   This story comes from the Washington Post. The Washington Post was bought in 2013 by Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. Word is

The worst thing wrong with Hillary has nothing to do with Hillary ... it is the obsessive hatred of the far right.

 

I wouldn't put her in the category of great leader but certainly she'd spent the time doing critical things that would prepare her for the office.

 

She is a politician and you should just call her a politician instead of a liar because all politicians lie.

 

However, one thing politicians don't usually do is impersonate PR guys and, while in that character, run on and on about how everyone wants to have sex with them because it is so fabulous because he is so huge.

 

Your candidate is a embarrassment ... and that is being generous.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing wrong with Hillary has nothing to do with Hillary ... it is the obsessive hatred of the far right.

 

I wouldn't put her in the category of great leader but certainly she'd spent the time doing critical things that would prepare her for the office.

 

She is a politician and you should just call her a politician instead of a liar because all politicians lie.

 

However, one thing politicians don't usually do is impersonate PR guys and, while in that character, run on and on about how everyone wants to have sex with them because it is so fabulous because he is so huge.

 

Your candidate is a embarrassment ... and that is being generous.

 

pubby

So impersonating a PR guy is worse than allowing classified e-mails to leak out or getting a US ambassador and two Navy Seals killed.

 

Gotcha!

 

Here we have a snapshot of the mind of a liberal, folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So impersonating a PR guy is worse than allowing classified e-mails to leak out or getting a US ambassador and two Navy Seals killed.

 

Gotcha!

 

Here we have a snapshot of the mind of a liberal, folks.

 

Hell, Cheney identified undercover CIA agents (through his chief of staff) out of vindictivness and you supported him. Hillary did not allow classified emails to leak out nor did she get a US ambassador killed (unlike Bush-Cheney whose optional war for Iraqi oil ended up with thousands of dead American soldiers, thousands more contract workers ... or even Ron Reagan's sending troops to Beruit where 241 Marines died.

 

That you demand perfection from Democrats and allow idiocy to run amok when you're side is in is simply hypocrisy ... oh wait ... in honor of the presumed GOP nominee HUGE HYPOCRISY.

 

If you've wondered why I'm jaded toward you folks, know that I just don't like HUGE HYPOCRITS which I think is the more universal understanding of those, not only on the left but us few remaining occupants of the center. KMSBA

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garbage.

 

If I'm not mistaken, The New York Times has a hard on for Trump.

 

The women put themselves in the position to be paraded and inspected. He kissed a girl on the lips? How did he get so close? No one is going to kiss me unless I let them.

 

Donald Trump is a rich and powerful man. Women shouldn't play the game with him unless they can win. It's a dangerous game to play for the psyche.

 

There's going to be more and more come out. Hopefully he'll own it and move on.

 

 

The NY Times is peddling lies :

 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ex-trump-girlfriend-new-york-times-223205

 

 

8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hell, Cheney identified undercover CIA agents (through his chief of staff) out of vindictivness and you supported him.

 

pubby

I did? Perhaps you can show me where I did that. You ASSume much.

 

Hillary did not allow classified emails to leak out nor did she get a US ambassador killed

Are you really that naive? Or just blinded by politics.

 

Though some of them weren't classified then, they are now. That is, now that hackers have them. We know that Romanian hacker "Guccifer" hacked into Hillary's server many times and stole her information. We also know that we extradited him and that he's involved in the ongoing investigation. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html

 

Using a private e-mail server was allowable so long as certain qualifications were met. It's fact that some were not met, so she is in violation of protocol. At the very least, her actions show extreme incompetence.

 

And yes, her incompetence contributed to the death of Ambassador Stevens and those brave Seals. She ignored requests from him and his office, cries for help. People have testified that she was late responding to their emails or never responded at all. And knowing as we do that her e-mail server was compromised. it's very possible that all those e-mails were passed on to the wrong people.

 

Are you really not aware of all this, or does your political allegiance to the Democrats as well as your hatred for Republicans just make you turn a blind eye?

 

 

nor did she get a US ambassador killed (unlike Bush-Cheney whose optional war for Iraqi oil ended up with thousands of dead American soldiers, thousands more contract workers

Oh, you mean the one that most Democrats also called for and supported until it was politically expedient to oppose it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

Hillary Clinton supported it too, BTW.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

 

That you demand perfection from Democrats and allow idiocy to run amok when you're side is in is simply hypocrisy ... oh wait ... in honor of the presumed GOP nominee HUGE HYPOCRISY.

It seems you either haven't been paying attention or else you're just too blind to notice, because I do not "honor" the presumed GOP nominee. The best thing I can say about his is that he should know how a market economy works and that he's not Hillary or Bernie.

 

If you've wondered why I'm jaded toward you folks,

"You folks"? Who is "you folks"? Using broad brushes again, pubby?

 

know that I just don't like HUGE HYPOCRITS

Huge hypocrites who blast Republican politicians while Democrats seemingly can do no harm? Just look at how I've blown your response apart, proved that many leading Democrats, including your beloved Hillary, agreed with and supported George Bush in the Iraq war. The fact that they later railed against him after first supporting him shows who the hypocrites are. Not to mention liars and political whores.

 

 

 

us few remaining occupants of the center

Now that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!!

 

A Socialist who considers himself in the center.

 

That you consider this the center only demonstrates how far to the left you are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know both the candidates are lacking in my eyes. What we need is someone who has been there and got things done, puts there money where their mouth is. It would be nice if they had integrity, intelligence, work ethic and a stellar resume instead of rhetoric and BS. Maybe a resume like valedictorian in HS, cum laude Princeton, magna cum laude Harvard Law, U.S. debate champion, runner up World debate champion, clerk for Chief Justice SCOTUS, solicitor general of second largest state in the union, wrote 80+ SCOTUS briefs, presented 40 + oral arguments before SCOTUS, involved in landmark SCOTUS decisions (like say DC vs. Handler) and maybe had congressional experience like authoring 97 Senate bills. That would be some one I could back. But alas no such resume exists. I mean not since Cruz is out. JMO but check the facts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And yes, her incompetence contributed to the death of Ambassador Stevens and those brave Seals. She ignored requests from him and his office, cries for help. People have testified that she was late responding to their emails or never responded at all. And knowing as we do that her e-mail server was compromised. it's very possible that all those e-mails were passed on to the wrong people.

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-benghazi-chairman-ignores-statement-gop-lawyer-054123503--politics.html

 

If I tell you it's not safe to sleep on I-20 but you do it anyway who is responsible when you get run over by a 18 wheeler ?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/knowing-its-dangers-chris-stephens-still-chose-travel-benghazi-384750

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Benghazi committee's Republican chairman is ignoring statements by his own former lawyer indicating that the U.S. military acted properly on the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya, the panel's Democrats said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-benghazi-chairman-ignores-statement-gop-lawyer-054123503--politics.html

 

If I tell you it's not safe to sleep on I-20 but you do it anyway who is responsible when you get run over by a 18 wheeler ?

 

http://www.newsweek.com/knowing-its-dangers-chris-stephens-still-chose-travel-benghazi-384750

It was too late by "the night of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Libya". Had Hillary responded to Stevens' earlier desperate cries for help, it might could have been prevented.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with either one of them becoming president we are in for a boat load of trouble....But if your spouse does something wrong do you also carry the blame? What Bill did is on Bill...But Trump well I don't know what to say except that man makes me very scared....as I said I don't like either one..wish a 3rd party would run

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with either one of them becoming president we are in for a boat load of trouble....But if your spouse does something wrong do you also carry the blame? What Bill did is on Bill...But Trump well I don't know what to say except that man makes me very scared....as I said I don't like either one..wish a 3rd party would run

 

So, if your spouse (for example) was a career extortionist and enabled you to live the "high" life because of his/her activities, do you escape blame-free? Are you not also guilty, both legally and morally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if your spouse (for example) was a career extortionist and enabled you to live the "high" life because of his/her activities, do you escape blame-free? Are you not also guilty, both legally and morally?

 

No. There is no personal gain for the other spouse that gets cheated on so that's a less than smart comparison.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't find this on the front of the NYTimes

 

 

 

Trump’s ex-girlfriend disputes NYT article: ‘I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump’

 

Dylan Stableford
Senior editor

May 16, 2016

One of Donald Trump’s former girlfriends says her comments were distorted in a New York Times piece alleging that the presumptive Republican nominee has a history of making “unwelcome advances” to women.

“I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump,” Rowanne Brewer Lane told “Fox & Friends” on Monday, two days after the piece — titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private” — was published. “And I don’t appreciate them making it look like that.”

But Brewer Lane told “Fox & Friends” that she “never felt demeaned in any way.”

“He was very gracious,” she said. “I saw him around all types of people, all types of women. He was very kind, thoughtful, generous. He was a gentleman.”

According to Brewer Lane, the Times told her “that it would not be a hit piece and that my story would come across in the way I was telling it and accurately. It absolutely was not.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-nyt-girlfriend-negative-experience-134316684.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a lot better candidate, than any other Republican, and I was glad he won. Nevertheless, I like the idea of Bill Clinton being back in the White House, any way he can get there! His sexual habits don't bother me.

Edited by The Postman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a lot better candidate, than any other Republican, and I was glad he won. Nevertheless, I like the idea of Bill Clinton being back in the White House, any way he can get there! His sexual habits don't bother me.

 

 

Then you need to read this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2922773/Newly-released-flight-logs-reveal-time-trips-Bill-Clinton-Harvard-law-professor-Alan-Dershowitz-took-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-private-jet-anonymous-women.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, if your spouse (for example) was a career extortionist and enabled you to live the "high" life because of his/her activities, do you escape blame-free? Are you not also guilty, both legally and morally?

No I am not ..my husband is a grown up and stands for his mistakes I doubt if Hillary gave Bill permission for the things he did. So no this is a issue between Hillary and Trump. And sure what Bill did was wrong...but a little sex under a desk did not affect the way he did his job as president...I don't trust Trump for what he might do sitting behind the desk

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not a Trump fan, but I gotta say he's showing some better numbers now that I was expecting. Still not great, he has a lot of people to win over. But he seems to be making some headway.

The few announcements he's made so far (that I've heard) about his cabinet are pretty good. Being a successful businessman, I have no doubt that he's very capable of choosing the best and brightest to build a strong team. It's what any administrator does day in and day out. I'm also confident that he knows how to get things done.

It's his mouth and some of his policies that still bother me. But we'll see. There's no way in Hades I'll vote for Hillary, and I have a problem with voting for someone who has a near zero chance of winning. So unless something weird happens, I'll have to vote for Trump. If for no other reason, to piss off the commies here. :p

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Trump fan, I gotta say he's showing some better numbers now that I was expecting. But he seems to be making some headway.

 

The few announcements he's made so far (that I've heard) about his cabinet are pretty good.. :p

 

In a surprise announcement today Trump said he wants to talk to North Korean dictator Kim jong un. Speculation is as soon as he can appoint special Ambassador Dennis Rodman arrangements can be made for a American/North Korean summit .

 

 

" Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is willing to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un"

"I would speak to him, I would have no problem speaking to him," Trump said of Kim.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-exclusive-idUSKCN0Y82JO

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In a surprise announcement today Trump said he wants to talk to North Korean dictator Kim jong un. Speculation is as soon as he can appoint special Ambassador Dennis Rodman arrangements can be made for a American/North Korean summit .

 

 

" Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Tuesday he is willing to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un"

"I would speak to him, I would have no problem speaking to him," Trump said of Kim.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-exclusive-idUSKCN0Y82JO

Nice the way you edited my post to change the meaning. Is that the way it's gonna be now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing wrong with Hillary has nothing to do with Hillary ... it is the obsessive hatred of the far right.

 

I wouldn't put her in the category of great leader but certainly she'd spent the time doing critical things that would prepare her for the office.

 

She is a politician and you should just call her a politician instead of a liar because all politicians lie.

 

However, one thing politicians don't usually do is impersonate PR guys and, while in that character, run on and on about how everyone wants to have sex with them because it is so fabulous because he is so huge.

 

Your candidate is a embarrassment ... and that is being generous.

 

pubby

 

 

 

 

 

 

=@

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mrshoward; in 1995 I was in support of civil unions as it seemed that legislature after legislature defined marriage as between a man and a woman. However, my support of civil unions was support for essentially and effectively the same thing - the difference in my mind at the time being one of semantics.

 

I've met a lot of people over the years and I don't perceive her to be any less accurate over time than the best of these folks.

 

As a person who claims understanding of American individualism, I might point to Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay called "Self-Reliance"

 

I've hid the wiki summary of the essay behind the spoiler below but rather want to discuss one of the more famous quotes from the piece ... one that I heard repeated often in my time in DC ... Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds ...

 

 

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…with consistency a great soul simply has nothing to do."[8] When a man adheres blindly to thoughts or opinions he has vocalized in the past, purely for the sake of seeming true to his principles, Emerson argues that he violates his nature. A man should not worry that he will be misunderstood or thought less of because his opinions changed. He writes, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”[8] A man must be willing, every day, to open his consciousness to his intuition, whether or not what it tells him is in conflict with his past conclusions. He also states how a man should still follow his own path even if other people feel offended by this idea. He writes, “My life is for itself”, “and not for a spectacle” emphasizing the idea of not following what other people think, adding to the idea that this compromises their individual values. Emerson wrote that if a person were self-reliant, he would have “consistent access to survival.”

 

Here's the full summary for Self-Reliance:

 

Self-Reliance" is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s compilation of many years' works and the archetype for his transcendental philosophies. Emerson presupposes that the mind is initially subject to an unhappy conformism.[9][10] Throughout the essay he gives a defense for his famous catch-phrase "Trust thyself". This argument makes three major points: that each person has his own self-contained genius, that society and worldly influences must be resisted in favor of one's own individuality, and that self-worth has great importance and value.

In the first section, Emerson argues that inside of each person is genius. He writes: "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,— that is genius." The remainder of this section is spent exploring this concept. He says that only a man who is self-reliant will be successful and any outside influences would take away from personal satisfaction.[8] Emerson claims that examples of people who trusted themselves above all else include Moses, Plato, and John Milton. He then goes on to highlight the value of individual expression. Emerson writes that a man should follow what he thinks in order to discover his own path in life. When a person follows another person’s path instead of his own, he feels dispirited and small. An example he states is a person hears some idea they had thought in their mind said by another person.[8]

Emerson says that a man cannot bluntly obey society if he wants to follow his own expression. “No government or church can explain a man’s heart to him, and so each individual must resist institutional authority.”[8] Emerson continues by decrying the effects that society has upon the individual. He says that when people are influenced by society, they will compromise their values in order to retain a foolish character to the world. He states: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…with consistency a great soul simply has nothing to do."[8] When a man adheres blindly to thoughts or opinions he has vocalized in the past, purely for the sake of seeming true to his principles, Emerson argues that he violates his nature. A man should not worry that he will be misunderstood or thought less of because his opinions changed. He writes, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”[8] A man must be willing, every day, to open his consciousness to his intuition, whether or not what it tells him is in conflict with his past conclusions. He also states how a man should still follow his own path even if other people feel offended by this idea. He writes, “My life is for itself”, “and not for a spectacle” emphasizing the idea of not following what other people think, adding to the idea that this compromises their individual values. Emerson wrote that if a person were self-reliant, he would have “consistent access to survival.” He mentions how family, work, and society can hinder the ability for a man to thrive.[8] He says that they can only stimulate his own thinking, not teach him anything.[11]

The essay then discusses of the value of self-worth. Emerson says one should not overly admire a great person from the past.[8] Emerson states that "man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage." He states that historically great men are not any more important than the present men, but they serve as examples of how to trust oneself. Individuals should speak their ideas instead of quoting the words of historical people because it will not help one understand his own inspiration.[8] Emerson describes a self-reliant man as someone who is not afraid to speak his mind and truth to anyone, resilient, optimistic, quick-thinking, and changes himself when he is inspired by himself. A self-reliant man does not like to travel. Emerson thinks that all truths could be found where a person was and he did not have to travel to gain anything.[8] He says, "I shun my father and mother...when my genius comes." He continues to say, "I cannot sell my liberty and my power to save their sensibility."[12]

Emerson concludes by saying that as society gains, it also loses simultaneously. He writes “Society is a wave”, “The waves move onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.” He explains how in order to be happy and peaceful, one should not care about the consumerism but should focus on his own situation. He ends with “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.”[8]

Throughout this essay, Emerson argues against conformity with the world. He argues how people should not conform to what other people in society think, but instead he should transform society with his thoughts.[2] He gives an archetype for his own transcendental beliefs, but also argues for his slogan "trust thyself". To follow Emerson's self-reliant credo fully, one must learn to hear and obey what is most true within one's heart, and both think and act independent of popular opinion and social pressure, in order to bring satisfaction to one’s self.[2]

 

 

 

All I can surmise is that there are a lot of small minds out there.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey mrshoward; in 1995 I was in support of civil unions as it seemed that legislature after legislature defined marriage as between a man and a woman. However, my support of civil unions was support for essentially and effectively the same thing - the difference in my mind at the time being one of semantics.

 

I've met a lot of people over the years and I don't perceive her to be any less accurate over time than the best of these folks.

 

As a person who claims understanding of American individualism, I might point to Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay called "Self-Reliance"

 

I've hid the wiki summary of the essay behind the spoiler below but rather want to discuss one of the more famous quotes from the piece ... one that I heard repeated often in my time in DC ... Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds ...

 

 

Here's the full summary for Self-Reliance:

 

Self-Reliance" is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s compilation of many years' works and the archetype for his transcendental philosophies. Emerson presupposes that the mind is initially subject to an unhappy conformism.[9][10] Throughout the essay he gives a defense for his famous catch-phrase "Trust thyself". This argument makes three major points: that each person has his own self-contained genius, that society and worldly influences must be resisted in favor of one's own individuality, and that self-worth has great importance and value.

In the first section, Emerson argues that inside of each person is genius. He writes: "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,— that is genius." The remainder of this section is spent exploring this concept. He says that only a man who is self-reliant will be successful and any outside influences would take away from personal satisfaction.[8] Emerson claims that examples of people who trusted themselves above all else include Moses, Plato, and John Milton. He then goes on to highlight the value of individual expression. Emerson writes that a man should follow what he thinks in order to discover his own path in life. When a person follows another person’s path instead of his own, he feels dispirited and small. An example he states is a person hears some idea they had thought in their mind said by another person.[8]

Emerson says that a man cannot bluntly obey society if he wants to follow his own expression. “No government or church can explain a man’s heart to him, and so each individual must resist institutional authority.”[8] Emerson continues by decrying the effects that society has upon the individual. He says that when people are influenced by society, they will compromise their values in order to retain a foolish character to the world. He states: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…with consistency a great soul simply has nothing to do."[8] When a man adheres blindly to thoughts or opinions he has vocalized in the past, purely for the sake of seeming true to his principles, Emerson argues that he violates his nature. A man should not worry that he will be misunderstood or thought less of because his opinions changed. He writes, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”[8] A man must be willing, every day, to open his consciousness to his intuition, whether or not what it tells him is in conflict with his past conclusions. He also states how a man should still follow his own path even if other people feel offended by this idea. He writes, “My life is for itself”, “and not for a spectacle” emphasizing the idea of not following what other people think, adding to the idea that this compromises their individual values. Emerson wrote that if a person were self-reliant, he would have “consistent access to survival.” He mentions how family, work, and society can hinder the ability for a man to thrive.[8] He says that they can only stimulate his own thinking, not teach him anything.[11]

The essay then discusses of the value of self-worth. Emerson says one should not overly admire a great person from the past.[8] Emerson states that "man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage." He states that historically great men are not any more important than the present men, but they serve as examples of how to trust oneself. Individuals should speak their ideas instead of quoting the words of historical people because it will not help one understand his own inspiration.[8] Emerson describes a self-reliant man as someone who is not afraid to speak his mind and truth to anyone, resilient, optimistic, quick-thinking, and changes himself when he is inspired by himself. A self-reliant man does not like to travel. Emerson thinks that all truths could be found where a person was and he did not have to travel to gain anything.[8] He says, "I shun my father and mother...when my genius comes." He continues to say, "I cannot sell my liberty and my power to save their sensibility."[12]

Emerson concludes by saying that as society gains, it also loses simultaneously. He writes “Society is a wave”, “The waves move onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.” He explains how in order to be happy and peaceful, one should not care about the consumerism but should focus on his own situation. He ends with “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.”[8]

Throughout this essay, Emerson argues against conformity with the world. He argues how people should not conform to what other people in society think, but instead he should transform society with his thoughts.[2] He gives an archetype for his own transcendental beliefs, but also argues for his slogan "trust thyself". To follow Emerson's self-reliant credo fully, one must learn to hear and obey what is most true within one's heart, and both think and act independent of popular opinion and social pressure, in order to bring satisfaction to one’s self.[2]

 

 

 

All I can surmise is that there are a lot of small minds out there.

 

pubby

 

Especially those small minds that ignore the other 12 minutes of the video.................

 

- Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Especially those small minds that ignore the other 12 minutes of the video.................

 

- Jamie

 

Admitted that was the first example but the remaining examples can all be explained by learning more, understanding more and changing as a result. As conservatives are anti-changing/evolving/growing, I understand your difficulty with the concept.

 

Still, you should heed the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson and his observation ... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…with consistency a great soul simply has nothing to do."[8] When a man adheres blindly to thoughts or opinions he has vocalized in the past, purely for the sake of seeming true to his principles, Emerson argues that he violates his nature.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emerson was pretty much an elitist intellectual socialist at worst and definitely a liberal democrat at best. Not to say he was not very good at his craft. I do enjoy his writings especially concerning "Self Reliance". I only say this to put his writings in context. Foolish Consistency of little minds can be interpreted different ways. I would say some of the greatest contributions to mankind have been from people who were consistent of mind. Traits like honor, kindness, self reliance, compassion, morality can be considered consistent mindsets. People like Jesus, MLK, Washington were consistent of mind in terms of long term goals. Just because you stand up for what you have believed in your whole life does not make you small minded.

 

On a side note WTH does RWE have to do with the OP? I can quote great thinkers and paste them up as if they are my original thoughts all day. Nothing original or intellectual about that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On a side note WTH does RWE have to do with the OP? I can quote great thinkers and paste them up as if they are my original thoughts all day. Nothing original or intellectual about that.

 

No one ever accused Donald Trump of being consistent.

 

I didn't plagiarize Ralph Waldo Emerson ...

 

Finally, what did a 12 minute video about Hillary Clinton have to do with the OP?

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...