Perspective

Updated 1/1/2017
As time has gone by and additional thought has been given to this topic, the scope of the problem has only
grown.  There is a distinct difference in the perspective of liberals versus conservatives based on the
application of ideology.  

In order to get to the center of the problem, consider the way that liberals perceive a criminal and the way that
conservatives perceive a criminal.  The biggest cause of the difference in the perspective is the attitude
towards personal responsibility where the conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own
actions, whereas liberals believe that there are thousands of potential blames for a person's actions.  The best
example of recent history is Michael Brown.  The liberals have developed a social movement around the death
of Michael Brown, converting him from a criminal to an icon.  Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that
Michale Brown was a criminal, resisted arrest, assaulted a police officer and was killed in the incident.  
Conservatives believe that Michale Brown made the decision to resist and assault and his death was a
consequence of a poor decision, liberals believe that police are responsible for the interaction and this is a
social problem of police brutality.  

The liberals believe that the parents of Michale Brown are entitled to sue society for the loss of their criminal
child, whereas conservatives do not believe the parents should be rewarded for failing to raise a child that
committing criminal acts.  Once again, this is a matter of perspective, liberals blame society and conservatives
blame the individual for making the decision.

Update is complete, back to the original discussion.



I have often wondered why some people seem clueless in the depth of their opinions about the world.  Of
course, what I perceive of depth is my opinion of their comments.

I am, of course, biased in that my opinion seems to have more thought and consideration behind it and I can
find flaws in the positions that others take.  They fail to see the same flaws in their position because it is their
choice to be illogical.

Then I had an epiphany.  My perception of the world is based on the way that I view the world through the lens
of my intelligence and knowledge.  The best example I can give is the perception of day and night.  I know that,
in fact, there is no such thing as day and night because the sun is actually shining all of the time.  Some people
have chosen to identify the period of time where the sun is shining on them as day and when they can no
longer see the sun, then that period would be referred to as night.

Do you see the point I am making?  There is no such thing as day and night because the sun is always shining
and the declaration of day and night is simply an admission on my part that I can trust only in the periods of
time where I can actually see the sun.  However, by refusing to recognize that sun is shining all of the time, then
I am limiting myself to a perception that does not reflect reality, it instead recognizes a perception of the world
as I want to see it.

Most often, when I wonder why someone seems as uninformed and clueless as their opinion makes them seem,
I have concluded that this is merely their failure to recognize the world as it is and instead they have distorted
reality with a perception of the world as they want to see it.  While it is probably just me, I have concluded that
their perception of the world
, based on their idealized vision, is the source of the problems.  I have concluded
that there is only one fact I need to worry about, failure to recognize a problem does mean the problem does
not exist, on the flip side, declaring a problem exists does not make a problem real.

The reason for this perception difference is simple, at least in my eyes.  Everyone needs to have a perception
of the world that they believe they can handle.  Are the problems surrounding them so great and numerous that
they are overcome and in a constant stage of panic?  My mother worries about everything, believing that there
is a big mystic pot of worry and if everyone puts enough worry into the pot, then the problem will go away.

I, on the other hand, have concluded that there are things I need to worry about and the rest of the stuff that is
wrong with the world won't change just because I stamp my feet and curse the world conditions.  There are
things I have an impact on in my life and these things I can try impact through my efforts and influence.  If I want
to convince an elected representative of a particular position, I can try and present a viable and cogent
argument, in the hope that my position will crack the shell of his perception.  

The issue is always a matter of perception from the point of the person taking the position.  Let's go back to
night and day and if I ask whether the sun is shining, then their perception will require a response dictated by
their established perception.  No matter what their perception, the sun is shining but will their perception be so
fixed that they are unable to see any other perception beyond that conclusion that it is dark outside so the sun
is not shining.

When I see someone stipulate a position that I find unreasonable, I wonder what am I missing or is it a matter
that they are missing the big picture.  So often, I have concluded that the position is simply an ignorance of the
big picture, that there is something that they are missing and, more often than not, this is the case (in my
opinion).  

When I listen to a liberal talk, I feel like I am hearing someone tell me that it is night, that the sun is not shining.  
The problem is that I know the sun is shining but that the limited perception of the other prohibits the ability to
see beyond the limited scope of their vision.  It is comparable to believing in God or otherwise, if we believe in
God, we know that the sun is shining and others only see the night.

In order to understand the weaknesses of any position, one must be able to see both sides and understand the
position.  While this ability may provide an insight to change your position, it may also expose the areas where
the liberal has failed to grasp the reality.  

My conclusion, often, is that the liberal is ignoring the facts in order to maintain an ideological agenda.  Forgive
me but it is time to drag politics into the discussion.  Liberals adamantly support Hillary Clinton, however, there
is abundant information available to imply that she is corrupt (a crude term from the right wing conspiracy).
     - There is email evidence that there was collusion between the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the
Clinton campaign in the intentional disruption of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
     - There are multiple incidents where the comments provided by Hillary Clinton are clearly false.
     - There are multiple incidents where any issue is simply dismissed, as that happened in the past, ignoring
that the actions of the past are indications of future actions.
     - There are multiple incidents where there is clearly pay-to-play however, the response is to combine these
instances with unrelated incidents to distort the numbers, implying that if the incident is 1%, that is acceptable
as compared believing that even one incident makes one a criminal.
    - Hillary Clinton proved that she will lie to the public for ideological purposes, she and Obama both lied to the
public about Benghazi and a video instead of terrorist.  Remember, they went so far as to have Rice show up
on all of the Sunday talk shows spreading the same lie and Obama went before the UN to support the lie.  
Obama and Clinton combined efforts to prepare an apology that was released in Arab TV, all false.

Based on these examples, it appears that the thought process of liberals is based more on ideology instead of
the facts.  Using this approach, facts are selected and twisted in order to fit the need and the projected results.
However, the most disturbing issue is the failure of the liberals to validate the information given to them, look at
the discussions of Trump bankruptcies.  Your comments are valid only if they cannot be proved to be false or
uninformed.  If you want to express an opinion, you must fully understand the topic and everyone that offered
an opinion did not understand the complexity of bankruptcies or the various types of bankruptcies.  A
bankruptcy is a normal business activity when a reorganization is required, remember the GM Bankruptcy that
Obama got involved in?  This was a reorganization bankruptcy but thanks to Obama, the investors were
financially damaged.  The problem is that the liberals don't know what was going on because they have no valid
business understanding.

Consider two topics: the First Amendment which gives you the right to your own opinion whether you are right
or wrong and Climate Change, which is another fake topic that liberals push to control the lives of others.  Many
people are so convinced for the ideology that they fail to grasp the failures of the claims.  However, under the
First Amendment, I have a right to maintain and express an opinion which is contrary to the opinion held by the
liberals.  Recently, a liberal Attorney General in New York attempted to organize a thought police because of
the people that refused to accept the situation as perceived by the liberals and Climate Change.

Here is my opinion, there may be validity to the theory of Climate Change but they are incapable of defining a
theory that will stand the test of prediction and result.  Originally, Climate Change was known as Global
Warming but the warming part failed to perform as expected so instead of validating the theory, they changed
the name to be more inclusive.  You must understand the underlying purpose of Climate Change, it has nothing
to do with getting carbon out of the air, it has more to do with providing a means to control the use of fossil fuels
and control the world supply of energy.

At one time, a rich man promised a reward for anyone that could remove the carbon from the air.  But this has
never been the goal because that would eliminate the pressure to eliminate fossil fuels.  In truth, there is one
simple way to remove carbon from the air, use photosynthesis from plants to preform the function that has
always been the function.  However, the conversion of carbon dioxide by plants, results in the creation of plant
starches, which when eaten, release carbon dioxide (a vicious circle).  

What if they simply buried the starches and never ate them, sooner or later, they would probably turn into oil,
but in the short term, the carbon would be removed from the air.  So here is the plan, plant and grow tons of
potatoes and corn and take the results and never eat it.  Studies have shown that the greatest level of
conversion occurs in the midwest corn belt during the growing season.  

Kinda got away from the main topic to make a point.  Perception by each person will shape your views,
however, your growth as a person can only be maximized when you are capable of understanding the depth of
the issue instead of the short term.  Most liberals have ideas but seldom see the full scope, the best example is
the liberal that wanted every car in the country to be electric cars so that fossil fuels would not be used.  The
problem is simple: where does that electricity to charge the cars come from?  You plug the car into the outlet.  
The simple concept is a tip of the iceberg and all the liberals do is scream about the tip without seeing the
iceberg below the surface, think beyond the image you are being sold.