Connect with us

Everything

Team loyalty nonsense

Published

on

You may be wondering why on earth an article on sports teams is here on TNA, but I promise there’s a relevant point.

Team loyalty makes no sense. When someone makes the decision to become a loyal fan of Team X, what are they saying? If it’s 2009 and they like the Yankees for example, then they are saying they are a fan of Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and Johnny Damon. But what about next season when Johnny Damon moves to Detroit? What about 2014 when Jeter retires? What about when none of that core group is left? If you were a fan of the team because of the players on that team, why doesn’t your loyalty shift when those players move on?

So it can’t be the players that sustain our devotion.

Is it the city? In terms of loyalty that makes a lot more sense, but what part of your city are you actually rooting for? Players are rarely from the city where they play, so they really don’t represent the city in that manner. Our loyalty would make more sense if athletes were only allowed to play for the city or state they grew up in… but that’s not reality.

So it can’t be the city.

Is it the organization? This is still the same problem as the players – people in the organization change. The only ones who don’t are the owners, but are we really loyal to a team because of its owners?

Maybe it has nothing to do with people at all. Maybe it’s the atmosphere, climate, and principles under which the organization operates that sustains our loyalty. This seems the most plausible explanation so far, but is the climate of a team really that different from one team to the next? All teams have the same goal, do they not? And, even when a team is known for having a losing aura about them, that can change with the shifting of management. For example, ten years ago you could have pointed to the Chicago Cubs as an example of an organization with a “loser” climate, and the LA Lakers as an example of a “winner” climate. Yet, those organizations are on opposite sides of the spectrum in 2017.

So what is it? Honestly, I don’t know. That’s a question psychologists would be better suited to answer. The more important point here is how we should pick a team, and it’s not complicated. All it really takes is knowing yourself and what you really believe.

In other words, when you truly know yourself, you are able to say, “I believe in these values and principles. Which team represents those values and principles the most?” Then you look around… Well, Team X kept that guy who abused his wife, so they don’t seem to represent my values. Team Y was caught cheating and tried to lie their way out of it, so they don’t represent my principles. But Team Z… when they found out one of their players was cheating, they kicked him off the team even though he was their best player! That’s what I would have done, so that’s my team! Additionally, the moment they stray from acting in accordance with your values, they should no longer hold your allegiance.

The same thing goes for a political party, a school, a church, or a job. Don’t remain loyal out of habit and laziness. Demand that they stick to their principles, and when it becomes evident that they no longer align with your beliefs, move on. If you find that what you truly believe is much different than what your church believes, why not find one that believes something more similarly? If the company you work for is constantly making decisions you disagree with, find a better fit. And please… if the political party you support continues to disappoint you over and over again, leave it! It seems so obvious, but if the actions of the party don’t seem to be aligning with your values anymore, stand up and find one that better represents you.

Welcome to the Federalist Party.

Democrats

The real reason Scott Wallace yelled ‘f*** off’ in a synagogue during a debate

Published

on

The real reason Scott Wallace yelled f off in a synagogue during a debate

Democrats have been claiming every Republican in the nation wants to eliminate the pre-existing conditions requirement in health care laws. It doesn’t matter whether they actually do or don’t (most do not). Public polling shows if you can convince voters the Republican candidate is going to take away their healthcare, it’s a winning message.

Scott Wallace, a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s 1st district, has been participating in spreading the leftist lies about healthcare. Specifically, he’s been running ads claiming Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) attempted to vote down the pre-existing conditions clause.

He didn’t. Even left-leaning Washington Post had to acknowledge that Wallace’s claims were a lie, giving him four Pinocchios for the outrageous claim.

Democratic attack ad falsely knocks Republican on preexisting conditions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/15/democratic-attack-ad-falsely-knocks-republican-preexisting-conditions/The DCCC really crosses the line here. Fitzpatrick bucked his party to vote against one of the president’s top priorities, the repeal of Obamacare, specifically because he was concerned about the impact on people with preexisting conditions. His reward? Being attacked for selling his constituents out on the issue because of his minor procedural votes, when just about every member of Congress sticks to party lines.

The vote that really counted on preexisting conditions was the tough one — on the proposed law itself. You would think the Democrats would at least applaud him for his courage, but apparently that’s not how the game is played these days. The DCCC earns Four Pinocchios.

When Fitzpatrick tried to question Wallace about the blatantly false ad and the continued claims by his campaign that Fitzpatrick tried to vote down pre-existing conditions, Wallace erupted. In the middle of debate. In a synagogue.

Dem Congressional Candidate Tells Republican Opponent To ‘F*** off’ During Debate

https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-congressional-candidate-tells-republican-opponent-f-off-during-debate/Scott Wallace, a Democratic congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, lost his composure and told his Republican opponent to “Fuck off” during a debate on Sunday. Wallace, who is running against Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), unleashed the expletive during an event at Congregation Tifereth Israel in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.

The candidates were standing on the synagogue’s bimah, an elevated platform used for reading the Torah during services, when Wallace made the remark, according to WBCB News. The outburst silenced the room and left Fitzpatrick “stunned.”

My Take

Wallace is a proud man who doesn’t like the fact that his entire campaign is built around a blatant lie. How would you feel if you had to destroy another person’s reputation by pretending they did something they did not do? His frustration over the lies his campaign is built upon are the real reason his frustration came out.

Wallace realizes he cannot win based on his ideologies or his accomplishments. His only path to victory is by continuing to lie in hopes the people of Pennsylvania are as stupid as he thinks they are.

Voters in Pennsylvania need to get this unhinged guy as far away from weapons, synagogues, and political office as possible. He’s a liar and a loose cannon. Keep Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in there to continue working for the state and the nation.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Beto O’Rourke’s accomplishments through the eyes of his educated supporters

Published

on

Beto ORourkes accomplishments through the eyes of his educated supporters

Texas A&M is one of the most prestigious universities in the state. Its criteria for entry are stricter than other state schools and it has built a reputation of churning out some of the brightest minds in the Longhorn State.

They love their football, steaks, and politicians. Many of them love Beto O’Rourke.

Unfortunately, they don’t really know why they like him.

He’s charming, attractive, funny, and down to earth. He’s inclusive. They can gather all of this information from his smile and his political party. Beyond that, they seem to know very little about the Senate candidate. They definitely don’t know much about what he’s done in his adult life, the majority of which has been in politics.

This video by Campus Reform yields predictable responses. We have grown accustomed to the brightest minds of our future, particularly those on the left, knowing next to nothing about the people who “lead” our nation.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Saudi Arabia is stalling for themselves, not because of midterm elections

Published

on

Saudi Arabia is stalling for themselves not because of midterm elections

Saudi Arabia is extending their investigation into the murder Jamal Khashoggi by at least a month. This has brought further condemnation on the Kingdom from the press and some world leaders, including President Trump.

President Trump says he’s ‘not satisfied’ with Saudi response on journalist’s death

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/22/donald-trump-khashoggi-response-saudis-am-not-satisfied/1731094002/As he departed the White House for a campaign rally in Texas, the president said he had spoken to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman about Khashoggi’s disappearance after he entered Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Turkey this month.

“I am not satisfied with what I’ve heard,” Trump said. “We’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

The president specifically reacted to Saudi requests to extend the Khashoggi investigation for another month. That would mean most of the investigation’s findings would be released well after the November midterm election.

“I think it’s a long time,” Trump told reporters. “There’s no reason for that.”

My Take

Talking heads on mainstream media bug the tar out of me, as do activist news reporters passing of biased stories as factual reports. It took a while to find this story on USA Today. Most tried to tilt the story to claim Saudi Arabia was acting on behalf of President Trump to extend the investigation until after the election. USA Today only implied it.

The sad part is that it’s far from the truth. Saudi Arabia hasn’t taken the timing of our elections into account at all with anything associated with the mess they created. They have much more important issues of their own to deal with and the inconvenience of this all happening around American election time is no concern of theirs.

If anything, the President would love for this to get resolved sooner rather than later. The beginning of October would have been nice. He could have scolded them, slapped sanctions on them, and made it a non-issue during the election. Now, the actions of a foreign government are going to have a minor impact because of the association between the two governments. Voters won’t recall that President Obama was cozier with the Saudis than just about any American President. That’s ancient history to mainstream media.

If the left tries to make this an election issue, the American people should rebuke them. The press is already doing it for them. We’ll see if it has any impact at all. I doubt it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report