Winning Hearts and Minds means Mind Control

I think so. It beats killing people, I guess.

Always? Are puppy dogs controlling my mind?

Yes, they are. It might not be conscious effort on their part, but you have been placed under their spell. They now have influence over your behavior. A man needs to be careful about who he lets into his heart and mind for that reason. Puppy dog or serial killer.

Puppy dogs are often serial killers. And cats especially.

Puppy dogs are descendants of wolves. Polar bears are beautiful, but they won’t hesitate to eat you. Their dangerousness is beside the point, though. The point is that beauty is a weapon and a means of taking control of your future.

Oh, this is about a woman? Or something?

it doesn’t mean mind control.

ideally “winning someone over” means that you convince them of something logical.

it’s not the convincer controlling them it’s their own logic.

now there are less iodeal ways to “win someone over”

it can be as simple as a song and dance or it can be a barrage of images in the media beginning at the age of 1

that i would call mind control.

here little one, watch the television. Watch stuffed animals with televisions in their chests watch television.

nuff said.

Nope, but close. Women win hearts and minds.

OBAMA: Muslims, look deep into my eyes. I am your friend. You will not kill me. You will sell me oil cheap. You will turn in your weapons.

^Real quote out of the times.

Aren’t we ignoring the issue of heart control? Conniptions can cause untolled distress. One good off-beat palpitation can affect the mind in surprising ways.

…breathe in, breathe out…

And the political mind control machine is exposed.

aparantly the “wining minds” issue is an old one.

if someone cannot understand the difference between a convincing logical argument, sophistry, rhetoric and coercion, then they probably don;t understand the concepts underlying democracy and why it may or may not be successful.

the idea is that as a group if we all vote for our own interests, that is the best way to serve everyone’s interests equally, the argument is not that some politicans or political “theories” or platforms “convince” people, it’s that they seduce and confuse people.

i have heard responses to this to this effect: "well if some politician is clever enough to convince someone, then that is his capitalist right to do the best he can for himself, it’s not his fault someone else was too stupid to vote for their own interests.

so now the argument from my side becomes, well why not just get people to vote for a more honest system, that would be fair and in their best interest, so please don’t object to me calling something a “convincing” argument, stupidly coercive.

altogether it’s a non-issue, this is what foolish liberals assail conservatives with, and this is what foolish conservatives challenge liberals with.