|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 2, 2008 21:34:17 GMT -5
Can the choice be more clear? Palin is an infommercial salesperson and Biden is a savy politician talking sense using facts. If this election is even close I'll be floored.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 2, 2008 22:01:18 GMT -5
I thought Palin did herself some favours, but hurt the campaign. An analyst on CNN put it similarly, saying it seemed like she was campaigning for 2012. Palin really took it hard when Biden went on that maverick rant, which he was clearly waiting for. Cheese in a trap.
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. Nobody's willing to legitimize what's been estimated to be as much as 10% of the population. Unbelievable.
edit: oops, not 30%, 10%
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 2, 2008 22:22:44 GMT -5
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. Nobody's willing to legitimize what's been estimated to be as much as 30% of the population. Unbelievable. Sorry -- don't want to derail -- but 30%? From whence come those numbers? Kinsey's numbers [since debunked] were "up to 10%" -- the numbers usually quoted. More recent figure suggest 3-5%. But it is going to be contentious for a while yet: motherhood and apple pie and heterosexuality, doncha know. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 2, 2008 22:59:23 GMT -5
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. Nobody's willing to legitimize what's been estimated to be as much as 30% of the population. Unbelievable. Sorry -- don't want to derail -- but 30%? From whence come those numbers? Kinsey's numbers [since debunked] were "up to 10%" -- the numbers usually quoted. More recent figure suggest 3-5%. But it is going to be contentious for a while yet: motherhood and apple pie and heterosexuality, doncha know. Whatever. LOL. Oops. Should read 10%. Haha. I'd be surprised if it was as low at 5%, but regardless that's a huge part of the electorate for which significant rights don't apply? Gimme a break. For politicians that vow to bring change, they're more afraid of what I believe is the minority of the electorate that actually cares in a negative matter. Would granting marriage rights make my sister's marriage less legitimate? Why is marriage even defined by legislature anyway, when it's a religious practice? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 3, 2008 6:05:00 GMT -5
Fully agree, RS -- "marriage" is a religious matter, legal unions a civil matter. In fact that's what many of the Canadian churches were saying through this whole debate.
Politicians in Canada are afraid of offending [pardon the word] the minority gay vote so they redefined the word marriage [and it won't stop there]; politicians in the States are afraid of offending the minority [OK, not such a minority there] Christian vote. *
*Note I did not say right-wing Christian vote, because there are people on the right who think that gays should have the right to marry, and there are people on the left that think that gays should not have the right to marry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 3, 2008 8:49:00 GMT -5
LOL. Oops. Should read 10%. Said who? The gay pride parade organizers? More like 3% anda couple of more percent for the occasional dabblers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 3, 2008 9:26:26 GMT -5
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. It's also contentious in certain parts of our country as well, Red. Truely sad. Kill gays, candidate says
High school debate audience shocked; fellow candidates say nothing
By ANGELA SCAPPATURA, Sun Media
2008-10-01
SUDBURY — Police are investigating whether an independent federal candidate committed a hate crime by telling high school students homosexuals should be executed.
David Popescu was invited to participate in a federal candidates' discussion at Sudbury Secondary School yesterday. He made the comment after a student asked his opinion of gay marriage.
Within hours, the Greater Sudbury Police Service said they were investigating.
"We are actively conducting a criminal investigation in this matter," deputy police chief Frank Elsner said.
The police service plans to share its evidence with the provincial Attorney General's office, which will provide direction on whether or not a criminal charge is warranted. More than 200 students gathered in the school's auditorium to hear candidates from the NDP, Liberal Party and the First Peoples National Party.
Popescu introduced himself with a public prayer, blaming environmental damage and economic unrest on the wickedness of society. His comments were met with silence as some students grimaced and shifted in their seats.
Near the end of the more than two-hour event, students were invited to ask the candidates questions. As a long line of pupils waited to speak, Popescu told a young female student who asked about stem cell research that, "God would hurt" those who had an abortion.
The crowd jeered and many rose to their feet in protest after Popescu answered another teenager's question on gay marriage.
During a telephone interview later in the day, Popescu reasserted his view.
"A young man asked me what I think of homosexual marriages and I said I think homosexuals should be executed," he said. "My whole reason for running is the Bible and the Bible couldn't be more clear on that point." Candidates and teachers looked on in silence as students called for him to be "cut off." Despite their outrage, the discussion moved to other topics.
Paul Camillo, principal of Sudbury Secondary, emphasized the school's inclusiveness in his closing remarks but did not condemn the statement.
"We're here today to hear what the candidates have to say," he said in an interview. "As an inclusive school, we respect all other opinion although we may not agree with them — and I know there were definitely some things said today that we don't agree with." When Sun Media-owned Sudbury Star later requested a comment on the controversy from the Rainbow District School Board, the board directed Camillo to provide its response, rather than the board's chair or director of education.
Camillo said he could not state whether Popescu would be welcomed back to Sudbury Secondary, as a candidate in a future political debate.
An advocate for the Sudbury Gay and Lesbian community said while Popescu's extreme views are well known, he has never said something "so extreme." "He's not simply saying that lesbians or gay men are mentally ill or somehow deviant or criminals. He's saying we should be subject to the death penalty," said Gary Kinsman.
"I think sometimes violence and hatred towards gays and lesbians gets dressed up in sort of a religious guise and is somehow tolerated. I just don't think it should be tolerated at all." Kinsman was particularly concerned the comments were made before a group of young people.
"There are lots of young people in high schools in Sudbury who are struggling with their sexualities. Often times, it's pretty hard time for them," he said. "To say something to young people is pretty terrible." cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/2008/10/01/6941636-sun.html |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Oct 3, 2008 9:42:53 GMT -5
LOL. Oops. Should read 10%. Said who? The gay pride parade organizers? More like 3% anda couple of more percent for the occasional dabblers. Up to. Hard to put a figure on it, because of the level of secrecy that exists for certain gays. 3% who are open with it? It doesn't really matter. I think it's funny, because if both candidates just said they were for it then the religious right would either be forced to pick or just stay home. Maybe it's more people than that who are opposed, but I truly wonder if the religious right actually outnumbers the gay community and their supporters. Perception would indicate it, but I suspect actual numbers might not. I haven't heard anything about stem cell research (looking at the article Dis provided I thought about it) so far in this campaign. Taking a back seat to economic issues now, for sure. But it's something I wouldn't mind hearing about. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 3, 2008 13:07:10 GMT -5
fwiw, RS, 7.5% of Canadians identify themselves as "evangelical Christians", which is considered the "religious right". However, not all evangelicals are right wing idealogues, and most are absolutely horrified to be identified in the same group as Fred Phelps. Never heard of Camillo before [why would I? I'm not from Sudbury], but I amazed at what he said: As an inclusive school, we respect all other opinion although we may not agree with them -- most people who have views that differ from [what has become] the mainstream are indeed cut off and not given a voice. .
Also fwiw, the Christian view of the Bible [splitting hairs here] could be more clear on the point made. Jesus had absolutely nothing to say on the issue -- and in fact when one person was brought to Him that "by law" should have been put to death rebuked those who wanted it done [John 8 . . . a passage in dispute]. Just in case you were wondering 
[really didn't want to hijack the thread -- sorry. Back to the debate: who won? does it make a difference? heard an interview on CBC some station that Obama is more right wing than people realize and McCain is more left wing than people realize . . . neither is true to their party ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 3, 2008 14:59:09 GMT -5
Can the choice be more clear? Palin is an infommercial salesperson and Biden is a savy politician talking sense using facts. If this election is even close I'll be floored. Biden is a savy politician who said O'Bama wasn't ready. Now he says he is ready. Barrak is a community organizer specializing in giving out welfare to the poor. He spent two years in the Senate and is the most junior senator in the country. Biden does have lots of experience. Palin has less experience but she is the only one with executive experience. She is grounded in Wal-mart hockey mom economics and values. McCain has lots of experience and Obama doesn't. The US needs a president with experience, not a vice with experience. Palin was concise, honest and on point. As low as Bush's ratings are, the Democrat controlled congress is lower. Much of the problem is the fault of congress, not Bush. In the debate itself, Palin definately covered the spread in terms of expectations and she actually won the debate outright. It's unfortunate that it looks like Obama will win Michigan and the electoral votes he will need. The choice is NOT between Bush and Obama but rather McCain and Obama. McCain is the better man, his policies are left of Republican and right of center. Obama is the farthest left politician (not counting Kim, Castro and Putin). If Obama gets elected and he has a majority in Congress supporting him, we are in for spending that makes Paris Hilton look like Mother Terica. We don't have the money to spend and the promices of no tax increase for those earning less than $250,000 will be impossible. There aren't enough people earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year to support the giveaways. Change and Hope. Sounds good when you are in the frying pan. Into the fire will be much worse. We are all entitled to our opinion. I guess that's why they have elections.  |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 3, 2008 16:32:19 GMT -5
Can the choice be more clear? Palin is an infommercial salesperson and Biden is a savy politician talking sense using facts. If this election is even close I'll be floored. Biden is a savy politician who said O'Bama wasn't ready. Now he says he is ready. Barrak is a community organizer specializing in giving out welfare to the poor. He spent two years in the Senate and is the most junior senator in the country. Biden does have lots of experience. Palin has less experience but she is the only one with executive experience. She is grounded in Wal-mart hockey mom economics and values. McCain has lots of experience and Obama doesn't. The US needs a president with experience, not a vice with experience. Palin was concise, honest and on point. As low as Bush's ratings are, the Democrat controlled congress is lower. Much of the problem is the fault of congress, not Bush. In the debate itself, Palin definately covered the spread in terms of expectations and she actually won the debate outright. It's unfortunate that it looks like Obama will win Michigan and the electoral votes he will need. The choice is NOT between Bush and Obama but rather McCain and Obama. McCain is the better man, his policies are left of Republican and right of center. Obama is the farthest left politician (not counting Kim, Castro and Putin). If Obama gets elected and he has a majority in Congress supporting him, we are in for spending that makes Paris Hilton look like Mother Terica. We don't have the money to spend and the promices of no tax increase for those earning less than $250,000 will be impossible. There aren't enough people earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year to support the giveaways. Change and Hope. Sounds good when you are in the frying pan. Into the fire will be much worse. We are all entitled to our opinion. I guess that's why they have elections. No comment. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 3, 2008 21:20:06 GMT -5
Can't underestimate the electoral power of the Bible Belt....Karl Rove didn't.
Gay marriage, stem-cell research....hot buttons that supercede many other issues.
Democrats will spend? On what? A war that's now used as an economic measuring stick? (i.e. I heard the bailout amount being described by news programs in terms of how many "Irag Wars" it is.)
Politics and religion.....very dyed-in-the-wool....hard to even look at the other side of things.
Republicans: If Palin was Obama's running mate, she'd be an "air-headed soccer mom".
Democrats: If Obama was a Republican, he'd be "too young and inexperienced".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same thing the world over.
You know who made the most sense to me the other night in the Canadian debates? Elizabeth May. And I'm not even close to being "green". No wonder Harper and Layton didn't want her included.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 4, 2008 0:04:43 GMT -5
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. Nobody's willing to legitimize what's been estimated to be as much as 10% of the population. Unbelievable. You might find this interesting: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt JONATHAN HAIDT is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage. But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is. I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." But if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle. The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: "disgusts me" (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and "disgusts me less" (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ). For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog). the rest |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 4, 2008 3:42:46 GMT -5
It still baffles me that the gay marriage issue is such a contentious one in the US. Nobody's willing to legitimize what's been estimated to be as much as 10% of the population. Unbelievable. You might find this interesting: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt JONATHAN HAIDT is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. (This is a good laugh in itself)But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. (LOL! Is that all?) People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. (Tax, spend and control freaks of the world UNITE!)Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. (Losing a soother or a vibrator can have a lasting effect!) We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage. But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. (Moral? A simpletons view of a complex question.)To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is. (Only a liberal pseudo-intellectual thinks that people vote Republican for "moral" reasons) I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." But if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle. The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: "disgusts me" (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and "disgusts me less" (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ). For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog). the restMore pompous, self aggrandizing, pseudo-moralistic, pseudo-intellectual garbage masquarading as "reasoned thought". TOTAL BULLSH!T....with occcasional "droppings" of lucidity.  As a "balance" to this article, I should post something equivalent like "Liberalism Is a Disease of the Mind" or "Why Liberal Policies Appeal To The Lazy And Losers". . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 4, 2008 8:47:08 GMT -5
Come on now, Cranky. Ya gotta read the whole thing -- you know that the intro is just to catch you and get you going.
I was of the same mind until I read the whole article: my first thought was . . .
“Oh come one: people vote Republican because they are inherently predisposed to being an inflexible redneck while Democrats are inherently enlightened?” and that [sarcastically] there was no conflict of thought or interest in the article: In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans . . . Never any exploitation of phrases or fears in the liberal mindset, is there?
But as I read he came back to what makes sense to me : that culture and tradition have a big part in influencing thought.
What a surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 4, 2008 9:42:26 GMT -5
Like I said, Karl Rove had it figured out.
Losing the game? Hedging your bets? Play the "virtuous God-fearing" card with hot-button moral issues. It'll trump most anything.
Fear of "gods" has been exploited by the powerful since people evolved.....I mean....were created. Whew....close one there.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 4, 2008 10:18:27 GMT -5
Fear of "gods" has been exploited by the powerful since people evolved.....I mean....were created. Whew....close one there. The middle east . . . the financial crisis is the States . . . Bernier/Couillard . . . George W . . . Celine Dion . . . you mean we've evolved? |
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Oct 4, 2008 11:26:44 GMT -5
A quick peek south of the border confirms that is not so.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 4, 2008 12:15:56 GMT -5
You might find this interesting: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt JONATHAN HAIDT is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. (This is a good laugh in itself)But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. (LOL! Is that all?) People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world. (Tax, spend and control freaks of the world UNITE!)Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. (Losing a soother or a vibrator can have a lasting effect!) We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage. But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. (Moral? A simpletons view of a complex question.)To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is. (Only a liberal pseudo-intellectual thinks that people vote Republican for "moral" reasons) I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." But if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle. The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: "disgusts me" (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and "disgusts me less" (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ). For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog). the restMore pompous, self aggrandizing, pseudo-moralistic, pseudo-intellectual garbage masquarading as "reasoned thought". TOTAL BULLSH!T....with occcasional "droppings" of lucidity. As a "balance" to this article, I should post something equivalent like "Liberalism Is a Disease of the Mind" or "Why Liberal Policies Appeal To The Lazy And Losers". . I was going to post a warning to not be put off by the first paragraph, which I assume is all that you read, but I guess I forgot. He makes some interesting points, not that I necessarily agree with everything he says. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 4, 2008 13:30:34 GMT -5
Come on now, Cranky. Ya gotta read the whole thing -- you know that the intro is just to catch you and get you going. I was of the same mind until I read the whole article: my first thought was . . . “Oh come one: people vote Republican because they are inherently predisposed to being an inflexible redneck while Democrats are inherently enlightened?” and that [sarcastically] there was no conflict of thought or interest in the article: In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans . . . Never any exploitation of phrases or fears in the liberal mindset, is there? But as I read he came back to what makes sense to me : that culture and tradition have a big part in influencing thought.
What a surprise.
I said.... with occcasional "droppings" of lucidity...didn't I? Yes, I read the entire piece of crap. It is based on how moral and virtues liberals are and how they need to understand the underlying motives of those idiot, redneck Republicans and by extension, Conservatives. This article is not based on a discussion of the differing philosophies but rather on how the liberal philosophy could be repackaged to appeal to those barbarians. Did you see the Canadian debate? Did you hear the "are conservatives barbarians" comment? This is typical of those liberal who believe themselves to be morally and intellectually superior. These giant silver spoon in their mouthers never understand how elitist they sound. When liberals understand that there are those of us who do not believe in a nanny state, who believe in PERSONAL responsibility, who believe that every man has a right to improve himself without the nanny state tearing most of it away, who believe that the world can sometimes be a dangerous place and we need to defend ourselves, who don't believe that being a victim is a socialist virtue, that the nanny state screws up more then it makes right, then these hypocritical, pseudo intellectual, psuedo moralistic silver spooners might, just might understand what it is that makes us think and vote Conservative/Republican. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 4, 2008 13:46:27 GMT -5
I was going to post a warning to not be put off by the first paragraph, which I assume is all that you read, but I guess I forgot. He makes some interesting points, not that I necessarily agree with everything he says. Ohh please....... If the article wasn't prefaced and loaded with two tons of moralistic and intellectual elitist bull, then some of his "understandings" would have traction....and even be a basis for a discussion. Maybe I should write an article in the same vein that starts with.... Those morally repugnant b*tt l*ck*ng carnal liberals have some understanding of social issues...... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 4, 2008 14:05:44 GMT -5
Like I said, Karl Rove had it figured out. Losing the game? Hedging your bets? Play the "virtuous God-fearing" card with hot-button moral issues. It'll trump most anything. Fear of "gods" has been exploited by the powerful since people evolved.....I mean....were created. Whew....close one there. Did you miss the giant nanny state bailout this week? Do you want to know what was the foundation of it all? Then you need to look up Jimmy "Virtuous" Carter and his CRA bill strengthened by good ol' BJ Clinton himself. Of course the banks squaked...and did the good ol' capitalist thing, they made money out of bad policies. You know what the real problem is? The political system and rhetoric is becoming more and more polarized. They start from the ends and try to find a middle ground compromise that STILL panders to their constituents INSTEAD of starting from the common sense middle and try to adddress some of the end concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 4, 2008 16:48:07 GMT -5
Like I said, Karl Rove had it figured out. Losing the game? Hedging your bets? Play the "virtuous God-fearing" card with hot-button moral issues. It'll trump most anything. Fear of "gods" has been exploited by the powerful since people evolved.....I mean....were created. Whew....close one there. Did you miss the giant nanny state bailout this week? Do you want to know what was the foundation of it all? Then you need to look up Jimmy "Virtuous" Carter and his CRA bill strengthened by good ol' BJ Clinton himself. Of course the banks squaked...and did the good ol' capitalist thing, they made money out of bad policies. You know what the real problem is? The political system and rhetoric is becoming more and more polarized. They start from the ends and try to find a middle ground compromise that STILL panders to their constituents INSTEAD of starting from the common sense middle and try to adddress some of the end concerns. See, that's what I'm talking about. Bush demands a bailout....and you blame the Dems. Bush invades Iraq...he's a hero. What of Clinton in Bosnia? Was he right or was he wrong? (I'm half-waiting for you to say it was right because the Republican House forced him to.) Not slamming your views.....you're entitled to them.....I'm just making a point of what tempers them. I look at my views that way, and I'm open to new ways of thinking. Like I said earlier, I'm not voting GREEN in any way, shape, or form....but Elizabeth May is one sharp cookie...and if she was Conservative, you'd love her. There was a saying I heard growing up: "Liberals or Conservatives would vote for a dog if it ran." Much like sports teams....we root for our favourites no matter what. We get disenchanted with them at times....but it's dyed-in-the-wool mentality....and for us it's "Hail the Habs and Damn the Leafs." Yet we all get along......  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 4, 2008 17:28:21 GMT -5
Did you miss the giant nanny state bailout this week? Do you want to know what was the foundation of it all? Then you need to look up Jimmy "Virtuous" Carter and his CRA bill strengthened by good ol' BJ Clinton himself. Of course the banks squaked...and did the good ol' capitalist thing, they made money out of bad policies. You know what the real problem is? The political system and rhetoric is becoming more and more polarized. They start from the ends and try to find a middle ground compromise that STILL panders to their constituents INSTEAD of starting from the common sense middle and try to adddress some of the end concerns. See, that's what I'm talking about. Bush demands a bailout....and you blame the Dems. Bush invades Iraq...he's a hero. What of Clinton in Bosnia? Was he right or was he wrong? (I'm half-waiting for you to say it was right because the Republican House forced him to.) Not slamming your views.....you're entitled to them.....I'm just making a point of what tempers them. I look at my views that way, and I'm open to new ways of thinking. Like I said earlier, I'm not voting GREEN in any way, shape, or form....but Elizabeth May is one sharp cookie...and if she was Conservative, you'd love her. There was a saying I heard growing up: "Liberals or Conservatives would vote for a dog if it ran." Much like sports teams....we root for our favourites no matter what. We get disenchanted with them at times....but it's dyed-in-the-wool mentality....and for us it's "Hail the Habs and Damn the Leafs." Yet we all get along...... Bush is to true Conservatives/Republicans what Hugo Chavez is to Liberals. One can't have any serious conversation about any political stance if those names are used as reference. As for the bailout, it is the biggest corporate handout in human history and BOTH sides think they "won". In a flurry of ACORN corruption, the democrats will give those houses away for 5 cents on the dollar and the Republicans got a huge handout for their fellow billionaires. The perfect storm of partisan politics that's simply another nail in the American economic coffin. As for rooting for our favorites, hardly. I have written before that I was a card carrying Liberal member and now I'm a card carrying Conservative.....who puts his money and effort where his mouth is. The minute I see that the Conservatives become the Christian Fundamentalist Party, I'm out of there faster then you can say pffft. As for May, her BS does not impress me. It takes a lot to run a country then screaming the sky is falling and spinning socialist policies around it. In fact, she is a Liberal lap dancer who hopes that she gets a few seats and she can make enough difference to form a Liberal majority. If you are religious man, pray that it will never happen. . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 4, 2008 18:39:30 GMT -5
Why are we discussing this here and not in the bailout thread?
A true Republican-slash-Conservative hates this bail-out -- you sink or swim on your own.
A true Democrat-slash-Liberal hates this bail-out -- corporations should never receive tax dollars; they should only give.
Fact is, no politician is true to his/her beliefs -- it's all about being elected and staying elected.
It is interesting that the struggling farmer/autoworker/whatever supports the bail-out.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 4, 2008 19:54:08 GMT -5
As for rooting for our favorites, hardly. I have written before that I was a card carrying Liberal member and now I'm a card carrying Conservative.....who puts his money and effort where his mouth is. The minute I see that the Conservatives become the Christian Fundamentalist Party, I'm out of there faster then you can say pffft. I haven't read that from you before....and I am sorry for making that assumption. It is true, however, of a great many people. My hometown area is one example. Farmers (my family and brethren) almost always vote Liberal. I vote based on how I feel parties present their platforms....(the BS-filter needs constant cleaning....and I know campaign promises are made to be broken). You're right, IMO. May can afford to wax away as she has no chance of being elected. But it doesn't take away from the fact that she is very intelligent and well-spoken. She put Harper, Dion, and Layton in their places several times....and they had little to say in response. I see her more of shovelling away the BS at this point........but the more powerful she gets (especially with the Green Party agenda) the more BS will emanate from her. Again...IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 5, 2008 0:14:47 GMT -5
A true Republican-slash-Conservative hates this bail-out -- you sink or swim on your own. Absolutely. This is another Bush abomination that takes a dump on what a true fiscal conservative is all about. The perversion of what democrats and conservatives is all about hasn't stopped there. NObama support bankrupted any of his future social policies and so called maverick is nothing more then McSame. I care for our neighbor if for nothing else then they are part of our meal ticket. I hate to be in the Average Americans shoes right now.....and in the near future. Franko.....are you prepared for the storm? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 5, 2008 0:30:38 GMT -5
As for rooting for our favorites, hardly. I have written before that I was a card carrying Liberal member and now I'm a card carrying Conservative.....who puts his money and effort where his mouth is. The minute I see that the Conservatives become the Christian Fundamentalist Party, I'm out of there faster then you can say pffft. I haven't read that from you before....and I am sorry for making that assumption. It is true, however, of a great many people. My hometown area is one example. Farmers (my family and brethren) almost always vote Liberal. I vote based on how I feel parties present their platforms....(the BS-filter needs constant cleaning....and I know campaign promises are made to be broken). One can not chose based on the "better" or "more honest" politician. The decision rests more on who is the lesser evil or who will do the less harm. I have seen first hand how even the most honest and true to his word candidate turn into a ladder climber for his party. The minute they are elected, they feel that they have to tow the party line to climb up the power ladder for portfolios or bigger. There is no room in ANY political party for people who will not bend their morals and convictions to suit the lust for votes. *sigh* On the other hand, is JeanGuy Smith really ready to hear the honest truth? Is BillyBob Gagne ready to hear thart HIS shopping sprees at WalMart is what caused the loss of his job? And that it's not coming back unless he is willing to work for 5 bucks an hour? The politicians lie, but they lie to the ones that want to be lied to. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 5, 2008 7:04:07 GMT -5
Franko.....are you prepared for the storm? Nope, me and the vast majority of Canadians are getting ready to bend over and . . . Always looking for a patron, though . . . |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 5, 2008 15:51:50 GMT -5
Seems to me it's always about money. Heard an interview on CBC this morning between Kevin Sylvester and a journalist who's name I didn't catch, but is obviously not a Bush fan. He was totally against the bail out as it passed. He thought a 'bail-out was necessary, but not as it was formed, essentially by Henry Paulsen, a former head of Goldman Sachs. Besides being very critical of television journalists who he described as 'actors' who wouldn't know what to say without their script, he made the point that AIG owed a lot of money to Goldman Sachs, about half the market capital of the company and if AIG had failed, Goldman Sachs would have been close behind. Suddenly there's a bail out of AIG. Lehmann Bros? No. AIG, yes.
Reminds me of the criminalization of Marijuana. Hemp was becoming an excellent substitute for cotton, superior in every way. Andrew Mellon was the SEcretary of the Treasury at this time (the 30's). His niece was married to Harry Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which Mellon created (gotta find those youngsters a safe, well paying job). There were a number of rich people whose financial well being were threatened big time by the proliferation of hemp products. These include Dupont (who owed Mellon Bank a lot of money) and Randolph Hearst. Miraculously, hemp is declared an illegal substance, and life went on except for a number of people who now were ruined, and for most of us who had to buy nylon instead of hemp and pay more for various other products.
The rich are different. And they will do anything to stay that way.
|
|
