McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

Though the Science study's authors cautioned against an overly broad interpretation of their findings, the results suggest that fear leads to political conservatism.
And right there in the article is where you can put your brain on a shelf, since you won't be needing it anymore.

I'll never forget the school lunch debate of the mid 1990's. Republicans wanted to block grant the school lunch program (probably a bad idea, but that is beside the point, as the merits and demerits of that were hardly discussed openly), and Democrats yelped that the Republicans wanted to take food out of the mouths of children. Pretty sure Biden was among them. Then there was Gore's tactic in Florida in 2000 -- Bush will take away your social security. Here again, there was something to debate. Bush's plan was eventually presented to Congress in his second term and found little support from either party, but attacking the proposal logically was too high brow for Gore. No, the method chosen by the Democrat was to bypass the debate and simply try to scare Democratically leaning retirees, which he most certainly did. Both tactics were successful. In the first case, Republicans dropped the proposal to block grant the school lunch program, and in the second, Gore surged in the polls in Florida, almost to the the point of winning the state. In fact, are Democrats not selling fear of Republicans? I think so.
Mike
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »


"Threatening situations do indeed seem to increase people's affinity for politically conservative opinions, leaders, and parties," said New York University psychologist John Jost.
Image

Yep... I see what they mean. :lol:

What a bullschit piece of "science." It doesn't take long listening to the authors of the study to realize a bias in search of an experiment to prove their point.

This reminds me of "experiments" in the 1960s trying to show the damage that rock and roll did to our brains.

Image

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

Democrats are selling fear of republicans. Republicans are selling fear of democrats. It works both ways. I will say there's nothing like an entire republican convention organized around keeping people scared of Islamic terrorists to illustrate the concept though. I wish I knew if this montage had any duplicates in it... I do wonder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlofjKEkSrA
--Ian
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

Oh, nobody said that Republicans didn't play the same game, but the insinuation was that principally it was conservatives and not liberals who did. As for Islamic terrorism, I find it amusing, to say the least, that Democrats would regard emphasizing the issue as fear mongering. Nothing else could make the point quite so well that Democrats are weak on national security. I'll bet you never thought about it that way. You just assumed that it resonated with Republicans because of fear. Think again. When I drive, I wear a seat belt. You think it's because I'm "afraid" of an accident?
Mike
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

mhosea wrote: Nothing else could make the point quite so well that Democrats are weak on national security. I'll bet you never thought about it that way.
I don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously..

I mean just the phrase "National Security"?

Pul-eeese!

Ah yes, National Security, the age old cry of the oppressor.. It justifies anything, no matter how illegal or immoral.. Yes we want government that's really focused on "national security".. Great platform..

How about the reps on "terror management". Should we really measure the level of success or failure here by attacks or by watching Haliburton stock.. :lol:

Conservatism? Yeah conserve on social programs and spend every last cent on the "war"...

Surplus to black hole ala the fiscal conservatives..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ASBuh72Re8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omQphkI4v3k

I just can't beleive everyone just takes all this BS at face value..

The war on drugs..

The war on terror..

Ad campaigns to facilitate political ends...

We have to have wars on stuff... Unless folks can see the purpose of such ad campaigns then there is no reality seen or understood, just manipulation imo..
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Are you saying you don't support the PATRIOT act, Jim? Are you some sort of terrorist? :lol:

Hi DHS agents! Yes I mentioned the word terrorist and heavily implied the patriot act is as anti-american as anything anyone could possibly conjure up. Go ##### yourselves! See you all in 9 years.
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Echelon awakes.. :lol: Did you have to put my name in there? Oye..

No..

I am a patriotic American and I agree that whatever my President says is in the best interests of the country.

I support any and all proactive actions and understand that this is a time of war and we must make sacrifices of liberty if we are to endure and finally smash the enemies of this country once and for all..

In a pigs eye
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

JimHawkins wrote: Ah yes, National Security, the age old cry of the oppressor.. It justifies anything, no matter how illegal or immoral.. Yes we want government that's really focused on "national security".. Great platform..
Yes, you're obviously oppressed, having all this free time to post on a forum related to your hobbies...
And national security, hahaha, oh, that is funny, you're right. Because we have to worry so much about getting blown up at work, at home, the park or at a wedding; or prep for invasion from foreign armies (men rampaging, pillaging and raping, and who view you as less than an animal can be so inconvenient). Man, it can really take the wind out of your day, know what I'm saying?

Take one for the suds, man, and don't forget: it's your patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.

Yeah, that constitutional convention... who were they kidding? Like government's top priority should be national defense. Pssh. Puh-lease.
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

The strawman speaketh

Post by JimHawkins »

Jason Rees wrote:
JimHawkins wrote: Ah yes, National Security, the age old cry of the oppressor.. It justifies anything, no matter how illegal or immoral.. Yes we want government that's really focused on "national security".. Great platform..
Yes, you're obviously oppressed, having all this free time to post on a forum related to your hobbies...
And national security, hahaha, oh, that is funny, you're right. Because we have to worry so much about getting blown up at work, at home, the park or at a wedding; or prep for invasion from foreign armies (men rampaging, pillaging and raping, and who view you as less than an animal can be so inconvenient). Man, it can really take the wind out of your day, know what I'm saying?

Take one for the suds, man, and don't forget: it's your patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.

Yeah, that constitutional convention... who were they kidding? Like government's top priority should be national defense. Pssh. Puh-lease.
Image

No you're right..by all means..

Here's to a better, stronger, more ruthless and more expensive National Security State!!!!

:sleeping: :roll:
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Here's my obligatory Nazi reference.. :lol:

Maybe the next Fuhrer will be even more entertaining..

(language warning)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdOaP68cgaA

Fascinating combination of cultural elements..

:lol:
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

JimHawkins wrote: I don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously..
Jim, I don't, but I can't account for what the average man on the street thinks about it. At some point you have to move beyond well-justified cynicism and focus on what actually does differentiate the candidates. They aren't the same. Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB are not the same. Clinton was probably more like Reagan on defense than Carter, don't you think? At any rate, if you think Republicans are afraid of terrorists and that Republican candidates are trying to exacerbate that, it says something about how YOU think. I don't think it is fear per se that drives most opinions on such matters. I doubt most folks in "flyover country" are expecting the mall to blow up or a hoard of thousands of mounted Al Qaeda soldiers to stream across the border. I can't speak for them, but I want to know whether we are electing a Chamberlain or a Churchill. I mean in outlook on matters of defense, not charisma and pithiness. That doesn't exactly slice along party lines, but I think Obama is an appeasement kind of guy at heart. I don't think Biden is (will have to look into it), but he's not running for president.
Mike
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

mhosea wrote:
JimHawkins wrote: I don't know how anyone can take this stuff seriously..
Jim, I don't, but I can't account for what the average man on the street thinks about it. At some point you have to move beyond well-justified cynicism and focus on what actually does differentiate the candidates. They aren't the same. Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and GWB are not the same. Clinton was probably more like Reagan on defense than Carter, don't you think? At any rate, if you think Republicans are afraid of terrorists and that Republican candidates are trying to exacerbate that, it says something about how YOU think. I don't think it is fear per se that drives most opinions on such matters. I doubt most folks in "flyover country" are expecting the mall to blow up or a hoard of thousands of mounted Al Qaeda soldiers to stream across the border. I can't speak for them, but I want to know whether we are electing a Chamberlain or a Churchill. I mean in outlook on matters of defense, not charisma and pithiness. That doesn't exactly slice along party lines, but I think Obama is an appeasement kind of guy at heart. I don't think Biden is (will have to look into it), but he's not running for president.
I hear you..

I am disgusted with the situation..

I also don't see any chance for the dems, so to me it's a moot point..

I see things getting worse in the foreseeable future, in terms of the economy, the value of the dollar, the deficit, new wars, etc..
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
Uechij
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2002 6:01 am

Post by Uechij »

"Are you saying you don't support the PATRIOT act, Jim? Are you some sort of terrorist?"

:lol:
My Shen Is Raised And My Chi Is Strong... I Eat Rice And Train Chi Gung
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

JimHawkins wrote:

I just can't beleive everyone just takes all this BS at face value..

The war on drugs..

The war on terror..

Ad campaigns to facilitate political ends...
How about the war on poverty? We need some balance on that table of yours, Jim. I'd say that one item on the left is perfectly capable of holding its own against those two boondoggles you've thrown on the right. ;)

At least with the war on cancer, most can agree we're actually doing more good than harm.

- Bill
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

I see a difference between panic and prudence, fear and caution. I think that people more concerned about national security will vote for the Republican candidate. I think those more concerned about the economy as a consumer will vote Democrat, while business owners will more often vote Republican, unless social issues are more important to them than their bottom line. I think the elderly are vulnerable to fear-mongering about social security, and yet neither party has done anything to keep it solvent (though Republicans have tried).

For myself, I'm not terribly worried about the economy (these things happen in cycles that have little to nothing to do with the president for the most part), and it really doesn't impact my life, up or down, at the moment. I do worry about international situations unfolding right now (my life is directly impacted by what our military does), and I think it's imperitive to have someone in the oval office that's qualified to be there. I'll oppose any candidate that may curb any of our rights (no, I don't view gay marriage or abortion to be constitutional rights).

And finally, I think that anyone who says there's no difference between Obama and McCain is selling something few have any interest in buying.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”