Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-15-2010 12:32 PM

Seriously? And you guys think those who say you want a socialist utopia use fear tactics?

JediKooter 09-15-2010 12:52 PM

Socialism/communism are no different to me, but, with some differences and I want neither and would voice loudly against both and I think there would be plenty of people regardless of religious affiliation to rise up against it. I have some reservations if enough christians would do the same if things started going towards a christian theocracy in this country.

What I described is how I envision a christian theocracy would be like in this country. It would be like Footloose on a nationwide scale, but, Kevin Bacon is sent away to a camp and never heard from again.

But really my point was, I would not be surprised if there is a large number of people who would be more than happy with a christian theocracy in this country. If you want to read into that, I can't stop you, but, it means nothing more than what I said about not being surprised.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-15-2010 01:01 PM

I guess when you say "large number" than can mean plenty of different things.

albionmoonlight 09-15-2010 01:11 PM

The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2348839)
Or rather, they are the true Republicans (what do you think the Republican Party was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?) and the super small government, socially conservative (c'mon, O'Connell is against masturbation for God's sake!) folks are the RINOs.


oooh!! well played!!!

CAsterling 09-15-2010 01:16 PM

Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.

Is your financial welfare more important than helping your fellow citizens, because to me that is what a capitalist society promotes (not aimed at a specific person, just an observation of capitalism).

Yes I understand that the real world application of these systems hasn't gone too well in various attempts to date, but it doesn't mean the goals they promote are good and shouldn't be the ones we strive for.

I worry about the Tea Party and/or GOP and its goals, which seem to have the unintended consequence of every man for himself and screw those that can't keep up - Yes I know that isn't the intent, but that is the message that they manage to portray to me.

I was a right wing supporter with a desire for some moderation and in a lot of things I still am, but over the last few years I find I have more beliefs in common with the Democrats.....which worries me as I never expected that to happen..

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2348886)
The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.


Very true

JediKooter 09-15-2010 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2348884)
I guess when you say "large number" than can mean plenty of different things.


I can't really say where the demarcation point would be from a small number to large number. For arbitrary reasons, lets say a couple of million would be a large number in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAsterling
Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.


Because time and time again throughout recent history, we have seen how easily those two systems are manipulated and perverted by the people and most cases, the one person in power and then easily turned into a dictatorship. And there's one thing they don't take into consideration...life just isn't fair.

The core principles of those two concepts do makes sense to a certain degree, however, there seems to be a problem once humans are actually involved in it. It's kind of like the Chargers: They look great on paper, but, once they take the field, they turn into a huge disappointing failure.

Glengoyne 09-15-2010 01:34 PM

Hopefully Castle will go Lieberman, and run independent.

Glengoyne 09-15-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2348886)
The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.


+1

JediKooter 09-15-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2348886)
The sad/scary part is that the people get the government they deserve.

The reason that neither the Dems nor the GOP have gotten serious about reducing the deficit is that they would lose elections. When a party is in power, it has to expand government AND lower taxes to get public support these days.

The real problem is that the kinds of things that the long term health of the country needs (higher taxes AND massive spending cuts on popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense) will cause short term disaster for whichever party has the courage to enact them. Because people vote their IMMEDIATE self-interest these days.


Well said.

CAsterling 09-15-2010 01:39 PM

[quote=JediKooter;2348899]Because time and time again throughout recent history, we have seen how easily those two systems are manipulated and perverted by the people and most cases, the one person in power and then easily turned into a dictatorship. And there's one thing they don't take into consideration...life just isn't fair. QUOTE]

I can't disagree with your point, it is a concern with those systems and as that wonderful phrase goes, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

However in today's world are we better set up to understand the pitfalls and learn from the experiences of the past and design a system that would take the best of those systems and the best of the capitalist systems. Shouldn't that be what we strive to achieve.

I live in a country where a person can get rich based on their looks and no talent, yet others are working 2 or 3 jobs to support their families and still don't reach the poverty line (and what is designated as the poverty line is I believe too low).

We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).

This is what worries me about the GOP/Tea Party and Democrats - rather than work together for a common aim they only accept agreement with their own opinions as the correct course - which can't be good for the long term of America even if it is good for the short term for the people involved.

ISiddiqui 09-15-2010 01:54 PM

Btw, I thought this was a great place to put this article by David Brooks of the NY Times, a True Republican and not one of those right-wing RINOs like John Boehner and Jim Demint (and yes, I'm going to go with this because the wackos that took over in the 80s and 90s are dramatically different from the midcentury Republican party).

Op-Ed Columnist - The Day After Tomorrow - NYTimes.com

Quote:

The Day After Tomorrow
By DAVID BROOKS

Every political movement has a story. The surging Republican Party has a story, too. It is a story of virtue betrayed and innocence threatened.

Through most of its history, the narrative begins, the United States was a limited government nation, with restrained central power and an independent citizenry. But over the years, forces have arisen that seek to change America’s essential nature. These forces would replace America’s traditional free enterprise system with a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy.

These statist forces are more powerful than ever in the age of Obama. So it is the duty for those who believe in the traditional American system to stand up and defend the Constitution. There is no middle ground. Every small new government program puts us on the slippery slope toward a smothering nanny state.

As Paul Ryan and Arthur Brooks put it in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America’s enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.”

Ryan and Brooks are two of the most important conservative thinkers today. Ryan is the leading Republican policy entrepreneur in the House. Brooks is president of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute and a much-cited author. My admiration for both is unbounded.

Yet the story Republicans are telling each other, which Ryan and Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.
The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending — demanding work in exchange for dollars.

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire — a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn’t build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn’t.

If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom, then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P.
That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the G.O.P. after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again.

It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom, then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy.

It would also be a policy tragedy. Republicans are right to oppose the current concentration of power in Washington. But once that is halted, America faces a series of problems that can’t be addressed simply by getting government out of the way.

The social fabric is fraying. Human capital is being squandered. Society is segmenting. The labor markets are ill. Wages are lagging. Inequality is increasing. The nation is overconsuming and underinnovating. China and India are surging. Not all of these challenges can be addressed by the spontaneous healing powers of the market.

Most important, it would be an intellectual tragedy. Conservatism is supposed to be nonideological and context-driven. If all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi socialist, then there is no need to think. A pall of dogmatism will settle over the right.

Republicans are riding a wave of revulsion about what is happening in Washington. But it is also time to start talking about the day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted. I hope that as Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan lead a resurgent conservatism, they’ll think about the limited-but-energetic government tradition, which stands between Barry Goldwater and François Mitterrand, but at the heart of the American experience.

JediKooter 09-15-2010 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAsterling (Post 2348910)
I can't disagree with your point, it is a concern with those systems and as that wonderful phrase goes, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

However in today's world are we better set up to understand the pitfalls and learn from the experiences of the past and design a system that would take the best of those systems and the best of the capitalist systems. Shouldn't that be what we strive to achieve.


I agree with this. This country has so many resources, be it brain power to mineral resources, etc...that there really is no excuse as to why no one should be homeless or going hungry, until you really take a hard look at what's happening and it's complex. It can be anything from people just being lazy to political ideologies.

Quote:

I live in a country where a person can get rich based on their looks and no talent, yet others are working 2 or 3 jobs to support their families and still don't reach the poverty line (and what is designated as the poverty line is I believe too low).

I have no problem with people getting rich as long as they did not hurt others in the process. Some people have to work 2 or 3 jobs because they dropped out of school and have no real skill set. That can be corrected, if that person is willing to do it. Yes, the poverty line is definitely too low and should also take into consideration as to what region of the country they are in. If you are in southern California, the poverty line is going to be much higher than it is in Wyoming.

Quote:

We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).

I totally agree with this. It's ok to have a difference of opinion and that sometimes sparks innovation. A country can really only survive if it is willing to be progressive and not be afraid to change for the overall good of the populace and the overall 'health' of the country.

Quote:

This is what worries me about the GOP/Tea Party and Democrats - rather than work together for a common aim they only accept agreement with their own opinions as the correct course - which can't be good for the long term of America even if it is good for the short term for the people involved.

I've said it over and over: A politicians only job (regardless of party affiliation) is to get themselves re-elected and if that means defying all logic to do so, they will do so and at the cost of the people. Coupled with the fact that the people share some of the blame for that for repeatedly voting these same people in time and time again.

Good points CAsterling

JPhillips 09-15-2010 02:14 PM

Question: Has there ever been a real Republican President or have they all been RINOs?

Discuss.

molson 09-15-2010 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAsterling (Post 2348890)
Socialism/communism - I really strugle to understand why people are against these systems. At their most pure they are systems that are designed to have people work harmoneously together and promote helping and assisting everybody to reach a decent standard rather than having a rich and poor class based on how much money a person can gather.

Is your financial welfare more important than helping your fellow citizens, because to me that is what a capitalist society promotes (not aimed at a specific person, just an observation of capitalism).

Yes I understand that the real world application of these systems hasn't gone too well in various attempts to date, but it doesn't mean the goals they promote are good and shouldn't be the ones we strive for.



The goals are good, it's just that people have never trusted the government as the "organizer" of everyone's assets to carry out those goals (and certainly history affirms that lack of trust).

But the goals of communism and socialism are practiced in smaller, private groups and organizations (even within families), and I think people do like to live that way.

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 02:30 PM

where do i sign up for european-style democratic-socialism??

molson 09-15-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2348930)
where do i sign up for european-style democratic-socialism??


You could make it part of your Republicans-winning retreat plan to show up in Europe to sign up, but they have very strict immigration policies to make it all work.

But even assuming that kind of thing could work here, I don't recall anyone in power, Democrat or Republican, pitching any kind of Scandinavian health care plan here. What we get is amazingly both more expensive and less effective, and yet we're told it will fix everything. It's really one big party in the U.S., they just convince us they're totally different to keep us arguing and distracted.

SteveMax58 09-15-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAsterling (Post 2348910)
We need to find a way of making America what it was intended to be, and taking the best of all ideas and making something great rather than as appears to be the current trend and demonising those who oppose our point of view (again not aimed at anybody, just an observation of politics and the media in todays world).


What do you believe America was intended to be? Is it not a place where people are free to do as much (or as little) as they desire?

Because if you think about it...in order for everybody to equally benefit from a form of government...they must all present the exact same value add. What if some citizens do not want to work as hard? Should they be forced to? Should they be rewarded for not working as hard? What if they can't?

CAsterling 09-15-2010 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2348922)
Question: Has there ever been a real Republican President or have they all been RINOs?

Discuss.


What exactly is a real Republican - not trying to be argumentative, I truely don't know how one is defined.

thanks

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2348932)

But even assuming that kind of thing could work here, I don't recall anyone in power, Democrat or Republican, pitching any kind of Scandinavian health care plan here. What we get is amazingly both more expensive and less effective, and yet we're told it will fix everything. It's really one big party in the U.S., they just convince us they're totally different to keep us arguing and distracted.


FWIW - I agree with you on this. They're 99.9% corporatist-whores.

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 02:47 PM

RE: O'Donnell's amazing support:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPP
While O'Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware's small group of registered Republicans over the last month she's turned off everyone else. An August PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It's now 29/50.

If Castle had won he would have received more Democratic support than any other Republican Senate candidate in the country. Now our polling suggests with O'Donnell's victory that Coons will win more Republicans than any other Democratic Senate candidate in the country. That's because of a general unwillingness to support O'Donnell from Castle's moderate base- folks from the centrist wing of the GOP are planning to support Coons 54-31. Overall he takes a full 25% of the GOP vote while also largely consolidating the Democratic base for a 72-13 lead on that front. He also has a narrow 42-36 advantage with independents, a group Democrats are losing with most everywhere else.



ISiddiqui 09-15-2010 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAsterling (Post 2348941)
What exactly is a real Republican - not trying to be argumentative, I truely don't know how one is defined.

thanks


That's part of the joke :).

JonInMiddleGA 09-15-2010 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2348839)
(what do you think the Republican Party was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s?)


Similar to today, except back then RINO's were referred to as Rockefeller Republicans

CAsterling 09-15-2010 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2348933)
What do you believe America was intended to be? Is it not a place where people are free to do as much (or as little) as they desire?

Because if you think about it...in order for everybody to equally benefit from a form of government...they must all present the exact same value add. What if some citizens do not want to work as hard? Should they be forced to? Should they be rewarded for not working as hard? What if they can't?


America should be a land governed by people who work for the good of all its people (not just their friends, sycophants or the ones who can help pay to get them elected). I want my government to be planning for where this country is going in 10, 20, 50 and 100 years from now, and making sure the infastructure required is built whilst constantly adjusting and improving those plans based on how society changes, I don't want them worrying about how to improve their standing in the polls next week.

I would like a land free of religous bigotory (sp?), a place where opportunites are there for those who want them and where where each person is treated based on their merits.

It's not about how hard you work or how hard you want to work, its where you get the opportunity to work as hard as you want to rather than watching your jobs disappear or move overseas so a corporation can meet wall street earnings expectations.

Where your religon has no bearing on how you are treated, and where treating everybody fairly no matter what differences exist is the norm. I want people to care more about their neighbour than they do about how to scam a few extra bucks on their tax return.

I want America to be Utopian, and whilst I know it will never be that good, I still believe those that dedicate themselves to public service and get paid by the people should strive for perfection and continue to aim for a utopia to benefit future generations.

I want it all and I want it to happen here.....and sooner rather than later would be a bonus:D

Yes I know I want a lot, and will probably have to settle for a little, but why set the bar low just because that can be achieved when you will achieve more by aiming higher.......yes I'm an Idealist, but what the heck.

JPhillips 09-15-2010 02:56 PM

Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.

Quote:

The National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) held its annual fall Board of Directors meeting in Charleston, S.C. last weekend – a decision the organization is likely regretting after several controversial pictures from one of the meeting’s sponsored events began surfacing on the internet.

One of the pictures shows S.C. Senate President Glenn McConnell - who FITS readers will recall enjoys dressing up as a Confederate General – posing in his Rebel garb with a pair of African-Americans dressed in, um, “antebellum” attire.

The event in question – dubbed “The Southern Experience” – was held last Friday evening at the Country Club of Charleston. Hosted by the South Carolina Federation of Republican Women, it was included on the national conference’s official itinerary.




ISiddiqui 09-15-2010 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2348961)
Similar to today, except back then RINO's were referred to as Rockefeller Republicans


Your delusions are incredible. Dwight Eisenhower was never considered a "Rockefeller Republican" but was probably the most admired Republican since Reagan came along. Nixon, of course, had loads of support until Watergate happened and his VP, Ford, were also not very big on the whole "any government regulation or taxes is socialism" meme.

JonInMiddleGA 09-15-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2348965)
Your delusions are incredible. Dwight Eisenhower was never considered a "Rockefeller Republican" but was probably the most admired Republican since Reagan came along. Nixon, of course, had loads of support until Watergate happened and his VP, Ford, were also not very big on the whole "any government regulation or taxes is socialism" meme.


You conveniently skip over Goldwater, and also ignore the earlier major foreign policy differences of Eisenhower & Taft which represented a schism of its own.

Of course that's okay, as you also skip over the reality that the party hasn't been what you're referring to in some 30 years, and that it seems reasonable to refer to the more modern composition of it when discussing it in current context (which is what I did) but hey, if that makes you happy then {shrug} by me.

molson 09-15-2010 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2348964)
Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.





At least they left the chains out of the pictures this year.

JediKooter 09-15-2010 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2348964)
Wow. Maybe some of them they really do want to go back to 1860.







At least they had live music...

flere-imsaho 09-15-2010 03:38 PM

It's funny, after 2008 I really expected to see a civil war-style fight for the soul of the GOP. I didn't expect them to wait until the midterm elections to get started with it, however. Excellent timing, guys. :D

JediKooter 09-15-2010 03:51 PM

Too funny, the Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theory Generator:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...575%2C550%3A25

ISiddiqui 09-15-2010 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2348968)
You conveniently skip over Goldwater, and also ignore the earlier major foreign policy differences of Eisenhower & Taft which represented a schism of its own.

Of course that's okay, as you also skip over the reality that the party hasn't been what you're referring to in some 30 years, and that it seems reasonable to refer to the more modern composition of it when discussing it in current context (which is what I did) but hey, if that makes you happy then {shrug} by me.


You realize that Goldwater was someone who popped up because hardly anyone wanted to run against Johnson that soon after the death of Kennedy, right (Lodge won the primaries in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey before dropping out and Rockefeller was doomed because of personal scandels - adultery kills anyone)? And Goldwater got slaughtered to a pulp.

And heck, if you want to define the proper Republican party, then you interloapers should get out and form your own damned party & stop backing RINOs like O'Connell while disparaging true traditional Republicans like Castle.

And if you are going to bring up Goldwater as a traditional Republican in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, then I get to bring up George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain as true Republicans from 1980 until now.

JonInMiddleGA 09-15-2010 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2348978)
It's funny, after 2008 I really expected to see a civil war-style fight for the soul of the GOP.


I think that was more of a (relatively) bloodless coup. This is more like the first round of taking out the trash.

DaddyTorgo 09-15-2010 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2348996)
Also, Barry Goldwater was pro-abortion and pro-gay rights and called Jerry Falwell a jackass when Falwell was at the height of his powers. He'd be called a RINO by Beck and Limbaugh too.


And Jon.

cartman 09-15-2010 04:58 PM

Nice quote from the head of the Delaware GOP:

"I could buy a parrot and train it to say, ‘tax cuts,’ but at the end of the day, it’s still a parrot, not a conservative."

SirFozzie 09-15-2010 05:05 PM

I agree with Jon about this being the first round of the trash being rounded up and taken out..

I just disagree what part of the R party is the trash.

JPhillips 09-15-2010 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2349026)
Nice quote from the head of the Delaware GOP:

"I could buy a parrot and train it to say, ‘tax cuts,’ but at the end of the day, it’s still a parrot, not a conservative."


Ah, but could you train a parrot to vote for TARP?

Checkmate.

larrymcg421 09-15-2010 07:56 PM

CNN/Time poll has Murray over Rossi 53-44. That's the second straight poll showing her with a 9pt advantage. Looks like one of the toss up states is swinging the Democrats way.

RainMaker 09-15-2010 10:56 PM

I know everyone likes to throw out the European socialist stuff, but are we really that different? There are things that they provide that we don't and vice versa. It just seems odd how we call European countries socialists and forget that most everything we use is socialized.

panerd 09-16-2010 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2349151)
I know everyone likes to throw out the European socialist stuff, but are we really that different? There are things that they provide that we don't and vice versa. It just seems odd how we call European countries socialists and forget that most everything we use is socialized.



I won't get as much into the socialism as I will the police state aspect... seeing the "gotcha" camera mentality that is prevalent all over Europe (especially in London) catch on in the United States in the last 10 years is not promising. I know we can thank both Bush and Obama for this but that seems to be a much larger blow to freedom than socialized medicine or banking.

panerd 09-16-2010 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2349178)
Well, the thing is, I can almost see the argument some European countries are socialist, but there is much hilarity in calling Obama a socialist.

Why?

Because the difference between the Bush 2008 budget that every Republican save maybe Ron Paul voted for and the Obama 2009 budget was a total of about 3% in total GDP as far as increased spending. Evidently, a shift that small in government spending sends us from a budget every Republican in office is happy to vote for to socialism.


Don't let the facts get in your way (first stimulus during W Bush)...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-101

145 GOP Nay, 45 GOP Yay

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Senate:

NAYs ---25
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)



There are definitely plenty of big government Republicans but you are wrong when you claim there are only 1 or 2 fiscally conservative Republicans. I will give credit to Democrats who voted against this nonsense as well. (Though I think they did for other reasons)

miked 09-16-2010 08:50 AM

Man, I'm scared of the possibility of the GOP running the country if Sharron Angle is capable of winning in a general election. I watched her for a few minutes on the O'Putz factor last night and man, she is just terrible. Like scary stupid.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miked (Post 2349284)
Man, I'm scared of the possibility of the GOP running the country if Sharron Angle is capable of winning in a general election. I watched her for a few minutes on the O'Putz factor last night and man, she is just terrible. Like scary stupid.


Seriously. My 15 year-old brother would make a better Senator than she would. He's certainly more intelligent.

The anti-intelligence backlash that this country (or at least parts of it) has is honestly...baffling to me. I seriously do not get it.

People wonder why America is a nation in decline - that's one good reason right there.

Is there anyone on this board who is willing to come out as one of those "anti-intelligence/anti-intellectual" folks? I'm honestly curious to try to find out what the deal is with that mindset.

panerd 09-16-2010 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349293)
Seriously. My 15 year-old brother would make a better Senator than she would. He's certainly more intelligent.

The anti-intelligence backlash that this country (or at least parts of it) has is honestly...baffling to me. I seriously do not get it.

People wonder why America is a nation in decline - that's one good reason right there.

Is there anyone on this board who is willing to come out as one of those "anti-intelligence/anti-intellectual" folks? I'm honestly curious to try to find out what the deal is with that mindset.


I am with you on the anti-intelligence stance the GOP has seemed to have for a while. (Though I won't pull a SteveBollea and claim all of the GOP are idiots) I can remember the 2008 Republican presidential primary debate where Ron Paul would state facts and history and the rest of the candidates would laugh and talk religion or in slogans. Ron Paul is the nut?

I will say this though about intellectuals. It is one thing to be smart and educated but when someone like Paul Krugman who was encouraging people to spend, buy houses, and spend more before the market crashed and then turns around and acts like he has a solution to the problem he helped create you have to laugh. Or the intellectual who thinks they know better than I do about what I should eat or if I can take drugs or knows better than all of the third world countries about how they should manage their affairs. That is when they overstep their bounds and no longer deserve respect for their "intelligence".

To answer your question though (after my normal off topic Libertarian rant :) ) I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.

flere-imsaho 09-16-2010 09:25 AM

When I got my coffee this morning I noticed that right on the front page of USA Today is the phrase "Civil War in the GOP".

Delicious. :D

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2349344)
To answer your question though (after my normal off topic Libertarian rant :) ) I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.


True.

It's fucked up though. I mean...even the Pope comes out and says that evolution is legit, and yet people still wander around out there thinking that Flintstones was a reality, or that humans have only been around 10,000 years, or whatever the number is.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 09:27 AM

I dislike it when someone acts as if studying something in college means their opinion on that subject is gold and not up for debate.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349355)
I dislike it when someone acts as if studying something in college means their opinion on that subject is gold and not up for debate.


I dislike that too. Of course it's up for debate.

I have just come to the conclusion though that you can't have a rational debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic facts. And I'm not talking (D) or (R) "facts." I'm talking...science.

panerd 09-16-2010 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349354)
True.

It's fucked up though. I mean...even the Pope comes out and says that evolution is legit, and yet people still wander around out there thinking that Flintstones was a reality, or that humans have only been around 10,000 years, or whatever the number is.



It all comes down to repsecting ignorance. I think pretty much every ancient history course studies Thor but they never take it a step farthur to exlplain that this God that nobody believes in anymore is what Jesus will be in the future. Something simple like that might take the 70% of people who believe in Noah's Ark literally number down a few notches.

flere-imsaho 09-16-2010 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2349344)
I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.


I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".

I'm sure that a higher-profile return to a slavish literal devotion to religious texts has some sort of influence, but honestly I'd credit most of this development to the Bush Administration and its supporters and the growth of a trust in instinct over thought. We joke about how Bush governed "from the gut" (actually, I think he may have said just that), but he ushered in a whole framework that governed off of certain set principles and wouldn't be swayed from them regardless of the objective evidence proving those set principles wrong.

I think this convinced (or reinforced the idea within) a lot of people that it's more important to just believe certain things are true, fight hard for them, and disregard any and all indications that you might be even slightly wrong. I'd like to point out, of course, that pretty much the entire right-wing punditocracy, including the usual Fox suspects, acts in exactly this way (and are lampooned mercilessly for it by Stephen Colbert).

Then, since a solid belief is considered so important to one's character, these people about whom we're talking naturally despise anyone who can see both sides of the argument (i.e. intellectuals). I think the message here (and we've even seen this overtly) is that if you can see both sides of the argument you don't really believe strongly in something and so you're less of a person (or even less of an American).

I think there certainly are parallels to a slavish literal devotion to holy texts, but I don't think that's where this anti-intellectualism got its genesis.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2349365)
It all comes down to repsecting ignorance. I think pretty much every ancient history course studies Thor but they never take it a step farthur to exlplain that this God that nobody believes in anymore is what Jesus will be in the future. Something simple like that might take the 70% of people who believe in Noah's Ark literally number down a few notches.


Or how about the fact that "Jesus' birthday" was conveniently placed on 12/25 because it coincided with the Feast of Sol Invictus (the Sun God) who was closely associated with Mitra, another huge pagan god at the time.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2010 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2349078)
CNN/Time poll has Murray over Rossi 53-44. That's the second straight poll showing her with a 9pt advantage. Looks like one of the toss up states is swinging the Democrats way.


Makes me wonder how this Tea Party stuff in states like Nevada and Delaware GOP is influencing these races... what I mean is that people in toss up states getting antsy about handing power to a party that seems to be taken over by loonies even if the guy running in their state isn't that crazy.

sterlingice 09-16-2010 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349355)
I dislike it when someone acts as if studying something in college means their opinion on that subject is gold and not up for debate.


Very true, but I think a lot of people fall into the opposite trap. If someone has studied something they probably do know something better than you and do tend to have more expertise if you have not similarly studied up on a topic. We don't say "hey, braniac doctor, I know my knee gets sore when it's going to rain so quit telling me it's arthritis".

SI

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 09:51 AM

I meant more along the lines of things that are open to interpretation, like historical/political analysis.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2010 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2349371)
I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".


Hear hear! I mean the head of the National Institute of Health, who used to be in charge of the Human Genome Project (Francis Collins), is a strong Christian (he even wrote a few books on it).

Regardless of what some like to sling mud about, President Obama has said that his faith is very strong to him.

Yes, regarding the Bible as inerrent (rather than infallible) is very highly problematic, especially in regards to science, but people can be believers and highly intelligent. Reason can explain everything. There is more to life that just what we can see and science can't really help us in that realm.

panerd 09-16-2010 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2349371)
I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".

I'm sure that a higher-profile return to a slavish literal devotion to religious texts has some sort of influence, but honestly I'd credit most of this development to the Bush Administration and its supporters and the growth of a trust in instinct over thought. We joke about how Bush governed "from the gut" (actually, I think he may have said just that), but he ushered in a whole framework that governed off of certain set principles and wouldn't be swayed from them regardless of the objective evidence proving those set principles wrong.

I think this convinced (or reinforced the idea within) a lot of people that it's more important to just believe certain things are true, fight hard for them, and disregard any and all indications that you might be even slightly wrong. I'd like to point out, of course, that pretty much the entire right-wing punditocracy, including the usual Fox suspects, acts in exactly this way (and are lampooned mercilessly for it by Stephen Colbert).

Then, since a solid belief is considered so important to one's character, these people about whom we're talking naturally despise anyone who can see both sides of the argument (i.e. intellectuals). I think the message here (and we've even seen this overtly) is that if you can see both sides of the argument you don't really believe strongly in something and so you're less of a person (or even less of an American).

I think there certainly are parallels to a slavish literal devotion to holy texts, but I don't think that's where this anti-intellectualism got its genesis.


Not sure I disagree with any of what you wrote here. However I think DT's question was mostly about politics and I feel like politicians often send the message that faith supersedes common sense and logic. So instead of Christianity or Islam being anything more than attempted answers to a question none of us could possibly ever answer they are taken literally as right and wrong by a lot of people and their leaders. This may be typical human behavior but it ultimately leads to LOTS of problems.

sterlingice 09-16-2010 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349385)
I meant more along the lines of things that are open to interpretation, like historical/political analysis.


Yes, but if they have more of a background than I do, I'm going to defer to their judgment on something open to interpretation because they have a better background for it. It seems we've come to equate folksy wisdom and oversimplification of problems as being able to discount an actual intellectual base on a topic because it sounds better in a quick argument.

SI

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2349371)
I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".

I'm sure that a higher-profile return to a slavish literal devotion to religious texts has some sort of influence, but honestly I'd credit most of this development to the Bush Administration and its supporters and the growth of a trust in instinct over thought. We joke about how Bush governed "from the gut" (actually, I think he may have said just that), but he ushered in a whole framework that governed off of certain set principles and wouldn't be swayed from them regardless of the objective evidence proving those set principles wrong.

I think this convinced (or reinforced the idea within) a lot of people that it's more important to just believe certain things are true, fight hard for them, and disregard any and all indications that you might be even slightly wrong. I'd like to point out, of course, that pretty much the entire right-wing punditocracy, including the usual Fox suspects, acts in exactly this way (and are lampooned mercilessly for it by Stephen Colbert).

Then, since a solid belief is considered so important to one's character, these people about whom we're talking naturally despise anyone who can see both sides of the argument (i.e. intellectuals). I think the message here (and we've even seen this overtly) is that if you can see both sides of the argument you don't really believe strongly in something and so you're less of a person (or even less of an American).

I think there certainly are parallels to a slavish literal devotion to holy texts, but I don't think that's where this anti-intellectualism got its genesis.



very interesting analysis...very interesting.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2349393)
Not sure I disagree with any of what you wrote here. However I think DT's question was mostly about politics and I feel like politicians often send the message that faith supersedes common sense and logic. So instead of Christianity or Islam being anything more than attempted answers to a question none of us could possibly ever answer they are taken literally as right and wrong by a lot of people and their leaders. This may be typical human behavior but it ultimately leads to LOTS of problems.


my original question was really more in general then in politics...i think it certainly applies to politics, but in a lot of ways i wanted to explore the topic more generally and avoid the kneejerk reaction by say a Dutch or a Jon that would be "because (R) ideas are always right. har har har." (caricature intended)

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2349398)
Yes, but if they have more of a background than I do, I'm going to defer to their judgment on something open to interpretation because they have a better background for it. It seems we've come to equate folksy wisdom and oversimplification of problems as being able to discount an actual intellectual base on a topic because it sounds better in a quick argument.

SI


If it's something I know nothing about, I will certainly defer. If it's something I too have studied, the views of their professors and books do not trump the views I've developed.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349432)
If it's something I know nothing about, I will certainly defer. If it's something I too have studied, the views of their professors and books do not trump the views I've developed.


but certainly you're open to debating them and possibly continuing to develop your views, right?

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 10:14 AM

Obviously. I've just seen the "I STUDIED THIS YOU ARE WRONG" card pulled a few times here and it's frankly a bit disgusting.

Passacaglia 09-16-2010 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2349384)
Very true, but I think a lot of people fall into the opposite trap. If someone has studied something they probably do know something better than you and do tend to have more expertise if you have not similarly studied up on a topic. We don't say "hey, braniac doctor, I know my knee gets sore when it's going to rain so quit telling me it's arthritis".

SI


The controversy over vaccinations is a great example of this.

JPhillips 09-16-2010 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2349344)
I am with you on the anti-intelligence stance the GOP has seemed to have for a while. (Though I won't pull a SteveBollea and claim all of the GOP are idiots) I can remember the 2008 Republican presidential primary debate where Ron Paul would state facts and history and the rest of the candidates would laugh and talk religion or in slogans. Ron Paul is the nut?

I will say this though about intellectuals. It is one thing to be smart and educated but when someone like Paul Krugman who was encouraging people to spend, buy houses, and spend more before the market crashed and then turns around and acts like he has a solution to the problem he helped create you have to laugh. Or the intellectual who thinks they know better than I do about what I should eat or if I can take drugs or knows better than all of the third world countries about how they should manage their affairs. That is when they overstep their bounds and no longer deserve respect for their "intelligence".

To answer your question though (after my normal off topic Libertarian rant :) ) I think the answer is religion. As long as we continue to respect people who take these holy texts literally (I always quote the percentage of Americans who believe in Noah's ark literally) we are going to be a country of idiots.


In your second paragraph you draw a line for where intellectuals should no longer be trusted. Those that we deplore for anti-intellectualism have just drawn that same line in a different place. We all have our predispositions and assumptions that are hard to shake. There hopefully is a difference in quantity, but I'm not sure there's much of a difference in quality.

JPhillips 09-16-2010 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349440)
Obviously. I've just seen the "I STUDIED THIS YOU ARE WRONG" card pulled a few times here and it's frankly a bit disgusting.


There's a big difference between taking an undergrad course and having years of study and research in a field.

larrymcg421 09-16-2010 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2349381)
Makes me wonder how this Tea Party stuff in states like Nevada and Delaware GOP is influencing these races... what I mean is that people in toss up states getting antsy about handing power to a party that seems to be taken over by loonies even if the guy running in their state isn't that crazy.


That's a good point. It could be the same as when the GOP had an edge in the GA senate race because it would've given the Dems 60 votes. Plus the fact is that the GOP is relying on several blue states to take the majority away. For example, Dems in CA may hold their nose and vote Boxer because they don't want to hand the Senate to the GOP.

The Senate map is actually not very good for the GOP this cycle. It will be much better in two years when the Dems have to defend their gains from 06, but the Dems political standing will also be much better (along with increased turnout).

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2349449)
There's a big difference between taking an undergrad course and having years of study and research in a field.


So, then, the most learned person is always correct?

edit:

I studied biology for four years. That said, I am positive that there are second year bio students who would be able to get more out of an article, design a better experiment, distill a biological question more succinctly than I. Education is important, but its not the goal. It just gives you more weapons for figuring out how to achieve the goal.

JPhillips 09-16-2010 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2349454)
So, then, the most learned person is always correct?

edit:

I studied biology for four years. That said, I am positive that there are second year bio students who would be able to get more out of an article, design a better experiment, distill a biological question more succinctly than I. Education is important, but its not the goal. It just gives you more weapons for figuring out how to achieve the goal.


No, but the odds they are correct are higher.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 10:41 AM

Well, I'll give you that for sure. I am talking about the mindset that education = correctness, not education tends to equal correctness.

sterlingice 09-16-2010 10:50 AM

I think we all agree on that point and we are all arguing semantics, a bit. I just feel that a lot of people make the next mental jump of really devaluing it by saying "well, education doesn't make one totally correct- in fact, they have no real expertise above and beyond me" which is patently false and just downright egotistical.

SI

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2349452)
but the Dems political standing will also be much better


You must be seeing some trend that the rest of the world has missed. The longer this batch of D's is in power, the worse their standing becomes.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 10:58 AM

Yeah, I was probably obscuring the point being made for a smaller, technical one because I feel the main point to be fairly obvious and not really done much here.

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2349467)
I think we all agree on that point and we are all arguing semantics, a bit. I just feel that a lot of people make the next mental jump of really devaluing it by saying "well, education doesn't make one totally correct- in fact, they have no real expertise above and beyond me" which is patently false and just downright egotistical.


If I'm following you correctly, I believe you're underestimating the impact of the sheer number of "educated idiots" that are frequently encountered day to day by many "regular people"; i.e. repeatedly hearing allegedly educated/intelligent people state opinions/positions that either fly in the face of reality or in complete contrast to positions that are unshakable.

I'd have a tough time believing that isn't playing a role in the discount being applied by a lot of people (even if I haven't managed to describe the factor as well as I would have liked).

larrymcg421 09-16-2010 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2349471)
You must be seeing some trend that the rest of the world has missed. The longer this batch of D's is in power, the worse their standing becomes.


And I'm sure the Republicans thought the same thing in 1994 and the Democrats in 1982.

JediKooter 09-16-2010 11:26 AM

Could this explain why Michelle Bachmann keeps getting re-elected?

Ajaxab 09-16-2010 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2349371)
I don't usually defend organized religion (and certainly not people who take religious texts literally), but I'll disagree with you here. Plenty of the great thinkers of history were also deeply religious. Plenty of great intellectuals of today are very religious. I happen to know people all the way over on the spectrum to "born again" who are also very bright and I would consider "intellectuals".

I'm sure that a higher-profile return to a slavish literal devotion to religious texts has some sort of influence, but honestly I'd credit most of this development to the Bush Administration and its supporters and the growth of a trust in instinct over thought. We joke about how Bush governed "from the gut" (actually, I think he may have said just that), but he ushered in a whole framework that governed off of certain set principles and wouldn't be swayed from them regardless of the objective evidence proving those set principles wrong.

I think this convinced (or reinforced the idea within) a lot of people that it's more important to just believe certain things are true, fight hard for them, and disregard any and all indications that you might be even slightly wrong. I'd like to point out, of course, that pretty much the entire right-wing punditocracy, including the usual Fox suspects, acts in exactly this way (and are lampooned mercilessly for it by Stephen Colbert).

Then, since a solid belief is considered so important to one's character, these people about whom we're talking naturally despise anyone who can see both sides of the argument (i.e. intellectuals). I think the message here (and we've even seen this overtly) is that if you can see both sides of the argument you don't really believe strongly in something and so you're less of a person (or even less of an American).

I think there certainly are parallels to a slavish literal devotion to holy texts, but I don't think that's where this anti-intellectualism got its genesis.


I really like Flere's explanation here.

I also wonder if this anti-intellectualism is part of a broader social shift that has arisen out of a more relativistic attitude toward truth in the culture. If truth is relative, then the intellectual's truth is no more valid than my own. I am my own expert about what is true. The intellectual's truth is only valid in so far as it squares with either my world view and/or how I would like the world to be. I accept experts where they agree with my worldview, but reject them where they don't. I think this idea might be related to the line that JPhillips alludes to in his post. Personally, I claim no expertise in social history, but it seems that in a past when people at least paid lip service to an absolute truth, in whatever form it took for them (science, religion, etc.), I suspect that they were more trusting of intellectuals.

Some additional more informal argument might be made about this position in thinking about the aspirations of teens. How many teens want to be celebrities of some sort? I thought I heard recently that a recent poll revealed that an absurdly high number of teens want to be actors. The aspiration appears to fame rather than to knowledge or wisdom. The idea of a famous intellectual in our culture is pretty much ridiculous. Maybe these these things aren't expressly anti-intellectual, but they seem to be symptomatic of an apathy/disrespect for intellectualism.

SirFozzie 09-16-2010 11:36 AM

I think generally, the swing to the extremes (on both sides), especially from the House, can be blamed on gerrymandering. Basically, the politicians, in their eternal quest to be re-elected, have set up districts to have as many of "their guys" as possible, and few of those who wouldn't vote for them. Therefore, as time goes on, more and more, you win by playing on the edges instead of in the center.

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajaxab (Post 2349491)
I also wonder if this anti-intellectualism is part of a broader social shift that has arisen out of a more relativistic attitude toward truth in the culture. If truth is relative, then the intellectual's truth is no more valid than my own. I am my own expert about what is true. The intellectual's truth is only valid in so far as it squares with either my world view and/or how I would like the world to be. I accept experts where they agree with my worldview, but reject them where they don't.


I think this is actually one of the better post snippets I've seen here on FOFC in a while.

sterlingice 09-16-2010 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2349474)
If I'm following you correctly, I believe you're underestimating the impact of the sheer number of "educated idiots" that are frequently encountered day to day by many "regular people"; i.e. repeatedly hearing allegedly educated/intelligent people state opinions/positions that either fly in the face of reality or in complete contrast to positions that are unshakable.

I'd have a tough time believing that isn't playing a role in the discount being applied by a lot of people (even if I haven't managed to describe the factor as well as I would have liked).


That may be. If we divide people quadrants of stupid/smart and educated/uneducated, the damage that can most be done is by the stupid/educated as the stupid/uneducated really don't have a platform to stand on and the smart/uneducated should, in theory, not be on par with the stupid/educated as they have no "proof" of their intellect. However, in that case, the smart/uneducated will be, well, smarter than the stupid/educated pretty much every time.

I also think that since our sources of information continue to be more and more fragmented, it is much easier to obscure the truth when you grab a small segment of experts where you give them an incentive to act in their own best interest (and in yours)- you can easily muddle the waters. You don't have to disprove the actual truth, you just have to make it seem like there is no truth or that it is relative or up for debate. Then the flat-earthers are elevated to a position of equality with those with the actual truth as we want a "fair debate" on something that inherently is not equal.

SI

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2349499)
That may be. ... et al


Y'know, between your two posts, Ajaxab's, and maybe mine, there's probably an entire philosophical thread about "the nature of truth" sitting here.

I don't think we really need to do one, but between the four posts it could probably be done pretty easily.

JediKooter 09-16-2010 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajaxab (Post 2349491)
I really like Flere's explanation here.

I also wonder if this anti-intellectualism is part of a broader social shift that has arisen out of a more relativistic attitude toward truth in the culture. If truth is relative, then the intellectual's truth is no more valid than my own. I am my own expert about what is true. The intellectual's truth is only valid in so far as it squares with either my world view and/or how I would like the world to be. I accept experts where they agree with my worldview, but reject them where they don't. I think this idea might be related to the line that JPhillips alludes to in his post. Personally, I claim no expertise in social history, but it seems that in a past when people at least paid lip service to an absolute truth, in whatever form it took for them (science, religion, etc.), I suspect that they were more trusting of intellectuals.


Good post and I mostly agree with this. I'd like to expand on what you say about paying lip service and being more trusting of intellectuals: I think it's ok to question these intellectuals, but, if the evidence keeps pointing to them being correct or wrong, there has to be some point where the debate is over. Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it is a good example of that. So is the whole, vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. How many studies have to come out that confirm or deny the validity of these things, yet, people still think that theses things are not settled? I think it's because they have more of an emotional attachment or just parroting the punditry instead of taking a rational approach to them. Not that I expect everyone to be like Mr. Spock, but, there's times when you just have to stop the flow of alligator tears and unpin the hearts on people's sleeves and quit wasting resources on settled issues. If new evidence comes to light, then yes, open up the debate again.

JPhillips 09-16-2010 12:17 PM

I think you need to separate honest, even if misguided, debate and dishonest debate. It's possible to honestly believe that vaccines are bad and even present data that you believe is just as honest, whether or not that data is in fact honest. Those people may be wrong, and they certainly can be a pain in the ass, but I don't question motives.

The people that knowingly feed questionable or false data into the media in an attempt to obfuscate the truth are the real problem. Almost the entire case for vaccines causing autism comes from one study where we know the author falsified data. Lancet even said that the article they published was a lie and people shouldn't believe there's data to support a link between vaccines and autism. However, the water's been muddied because the media loves to report the controversy and challenge accepted truths.

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2349506)
Not that I expect everyone to be like Mr. Spock, but, there's times when you just have to stop the flow of alligator tears and unpin the hearts on people's sleeves and quit wasting resources on settled issues. If new evidence comes to light, then yes, open up the debate again.


Which might sound okay in theory, if those things were dealt with in a theoretical fashion.

Once you start making laws and/or spending tax money related to whatever "truth" however, then the debate remains in play since (in simplest terms) "people believe whatever they believe" and it's ultimately their money you're messing with. There's no shutting down the debate, because ultimately ther is no any inherent right of government to go against the wishes of the governed even if - hypothetically - the governed believed something that was proven false by empirical evidence beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

JediKooter 09-16-2010 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2349510)
I think you need to separate honest, even if misguided, debate and dishonest debate. It's possible to honestly believe that vaccines are bad and even present data that you believe is just as honest, whether or not that data is in fact honest. Those people may be wrong, and they certainly can be a pain in the ass, but I don't question motives.

The people that knowingly feed questionable or false data into the media in an attempt to obfuscate the truth are the real problem. Almost the entire case for vaccines causing autism comes from one study where we know the author falsified data. Lancet even said that the article they published was a lie and people shouldn't believe there's data to support a link between vaccines and autism. However, the water's been muddied because the media loves to report the controversy and challenge accepted truths.


That's an absolutely great point. I actually have no problem with people who have been misled, up until the point that the amount of available data is overwhelming to where now they are either purposely being stubborn or have a ulterior motive. Plus, I have to agree with you on the media being a part of the problem as well.

JediKooter 09-16-2010 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2349517)
Which might sound okay in theory, if those things were dealt with in a theoretical fashion.

Once you start making laws and/or spending tax money related to whatever "truth" however, then the debate remains in play since (in simplest terms) "people believe whatever they believe" and it's ultimately their money you're messing with. There's no shutting down the debate, because ultimately ther is no any inherent right of government to go against the wishes of the governed even if - hypothetically - the governed believed something that was proven false by empirical evidence beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.


Oh don't get me wrong, I don't believe for one second that theory could be put into practice to the degree it should be, in the world that we live in today.

Well, that's where I was saying the emotional aspects come into play. The only rationality that comes into play in the political arena is: How can I appeal to the emotions of my constituents to get myself re-elected. That's why you keep hearing things like abortion come up in election campaigns. That is a huge emotional issue, regardless of the fact that it has no impact on jobs, taxes, the economy, trade, foreign relations and list goes on and on. If I know a vast amount of people in my district (say, by way of a poll) are skeptical of global warming, I'm going to play to that crowd to try and get myself elected. Logic and evidence be damned. Now you have a whole group of people who feel like their 'beliefs' have been legitimized because someone in a position of power feels the same way they do. Again, despite all of the contrary evidence, they now have a voice that goes up against these 'so called experts'.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2349499)
I also think that since our sources of information continue to be more and more fragmented, it is much easier to obscure the truth when you grab a small segment of experts where you give them an incentive to act in their own best interest (and in yours)- you can easily muddle the waters. You don't have to disprove the actual truth, you just have to make it seem like there is no truth or that it is relative or up for debate. Then the flat-earthers are elevated to a position of equality with those with the actual truth as we want a "fair debate" on something that inherently is not equal.

SI

I think this is a huge part of the issue. All of a sudden it becomes "well we have to give the people who don't believe in evolution their input so let's rewrite all of the textbooks to say that evolution is just a theory and an alternative theory is divine creation, that way we don't offend anybody and we don't leave ourselves open to getting sued."

And the end result is that we end up a stupider society by allowing "fringe" people with ridiculous, non-scientific beliefs to be elevated to an equal platform.

JediKooter 09-16-2010 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349545)
I think this is a huge part of the issue. All of a sudden it becomes "well we have to give the people who don't believe in evolution their input so let's rewrite all of the textbooks to say that evolution is just a theory and an alternative theory is divine creation, that way we don't offend anybody and we don't leave ourselves open to getting sued."

And the end result is that we end up a stupider society by allowing "fringe" people with ridiculous, non-scientific beliefs to be elevated to an equal platform.


+1000

Ajaxab 09-16-2010 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2349506)
Good post and I mostly agree with this. I'd like to expand on what you say about paying lip service and being more trusting of intellectuals: I think it's ok to question these intellectuals, but, if the evidence keeps pointing to them being correct or wrong, there has to be some point where the debate is over. Global warming/climate change, whatever you want to call it is a good example of that. So is the whole, vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause brain cancer. How many studies have to come out that confirm or deny the validity of these things, yet, people still think that theses things are not settled? I think it's because they have more of an emotional attachment or just parroting the punditry instead of taking a rational approach to them. Not that I expect everyone to be like Mr. Spock, but, there's times when you just have to stop the flow of alligator tears and unpin the hearts on people's sleeves and quit wasting resources on settled issues. If new evidence comes to light, then yes, open up the debate again.


I agree with you that it's okay and profitable to challenge intellectuals. After all, they should be able to defend their positions and often do very credibly.

That being said, if people see truth as something personal and relative and not external to themselves, we could give them mountains of studies on whatever subject might be under discussion and they could still say that the intellectuals' truth is different than their own. Nothing can ever be settled for this kind of person unless that person believes it settled. It is, after all, their truth. And their truth, within this framework, is just as valid as the truth from the mountains of studies sitting in front of them. In a strange way, for them, the debate is over, but for a very different reason than the one you present here. The debate is over because they claim it is over not because of the studies that might lead us in that direction.

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349545)
And the end result is that we end up a stupider society by allowing "fringe" people with ridiculous, non-scientific beliefs to be elevated to an equal platform.


Want to know why so-called "intellectuals" are relegated to the bargain bin?
This quote is a great example.

The only thing I feel for those who believe science is the end-all/be-all explanation for everything is pity. There's no respect, there's a constant struggle to remain civil towards them, and it's hard to take them seriously or even moreso to trust them about anything due to their grave error in judgment on the most critical matter of all.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all Americans believe in God (or similar entity), a number that's actually increasing on the past decade according to recent surveys. How ya think quotes like the one above play with most of them?

Let's be clear here, my point isn't to bash DT, there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere. My point here goes directly back to the sidebar about why "intellectuals" are so easy to dismiss.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2349570)
Want to know why so-called "intellectuals" are relegated to the bargain bin?
This quote is a great example.

The only thing I feel for those who believe science is the end-all/be-all explanation for everything is pity. There's no respect, there's a constant struggle to remain civil towards them, and it's hard to take them seriously or even moreso to trust them about anything due to their grave error in judgment on the most critical matter of all.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of all Americans believe in God (or similar entity), a number that's actually increasing on the past decade according to recent surveys. How ya think quotes like the one above play with most of them?

Let's be clear here, my point isn't to bash DT, there's plenty of opportunities to do that elsewhere. My point here goes directly back to the sidebar about why "intellectuals" are so easy to dismiss.



Where did I say it was exclusively about religion? It could just as easily be about vaccines causing autism, or pick anything else. I did use a religious example earlier in that post, because it was the first one that sprang to mind.

And it's only your opinion that I've made a grave error in judgement. You have no proof to back that up. No facts.

But I don't want to turn this into another science vs. religion debacle.

It's true though. Science brings actual facts, actual bones and fossils to the table in a discussion. Religion doesn't. I simply contend that until it can it shouldn't be elevated to the same level of certainty as science.

Go ahead and believe it...that's fine. Hell...my parents are extremely religious. I went to a Jesuit college. I took a mandatory class on religion that was focused on reading the Bible from both a historical and religious standpoint. Not anymore, because that was 12 years ago, but I bet at that point I could have out-Bible'd you, or most others on this board.

Doesn't mean I think that it's okay to elevate creationism onto the same level as evolution. That's just being pig-headed and so blinkered by your faith into being unwilling to think critically about the world around you, when even the damn Pope has said that evolution is a certainty.

Don't get me wrong...I know some very intelligent religious people. But they all have retained the ability to think for themselves rather than "taking the easy way out" (as I'll put it to finally wrap up this posit).

CraigSca 09-16-2010 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349576)
Where did I say it was exclusively about religion? It could just as easily be about vaccines causing autism, or pick anything else. I did use a religious example earlier in that post, because it was the first one that sprang to mind.

And it's only your opinion that I've made a grave error in judgement. You have no proof to back that up. No facts.

But I don't want to turn this into another science vs. religion debacle.

It's true though. Science brings actual facts, actual bones and fossils to the table in a discussion. Religion doesn't. I simply contend that until it can it shouldn't be elevated to the same level of certainty as science.


But even science is filled with conjecture. In the same way you look at religion as a load of hooey, we're so overloaded with "facts" from the holier than thou (how's that for irony) scientific community that we can't help but question a great many things. How's that swine flu epidemic coming along? How 'bout that avian flu? Watch out for that 1970's ice age - we're all doomed! Saccharin causes cancer! Here, take Accutane - oops, it can cause depression and suicide. blah, blah, blah.

There's a good bit in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" where the scientists offer Allen's character a meal of ice cream sundaes with fudge and they laugh about how such food was considered bad for you decades ago.

Mind you - I fully buy-in to science and scientific theory, but I don't necessarily blame the masses for being just a bit wary and suspicious of the scientific community. Especially when they can see (whether real or imagined) results that run counter.

Oh, and speaking of the autism debate...while I don't think thimerasol is the sole reason for autism I do think there has to be some kind of relation. Maybe it has nothing to do with the ingredients, but the sheer bombardment of vaccines during certain time periods. It just seems to me that where there's smoke, there's fire - though that fire may be somewhere else in the proverbial haystack.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 02:24 PM

to bring this back to politics away from the religion/science thing.

Christine O'Donnell (R) Candidate from SC on O'Reilly

Quote:

O’DONNELL: … these groups admitted that the report that said, “Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we’re using this to start cloning humans.” We have to keep…
O’REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won’t do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.
O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.
http://littlegree­nfootballs.com...-Human_Hybrids



Really?? Really???

JonInMiddleGA 09-16-2010 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349576)
I simply contend that until it can it shouldn't be elevated to the same level of certainty as science.


Therein lies the crux of the issue, I fear. You're looking at it backwards from the get-go.

There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion.

Again FTR, this wasn't about bashing you, you happened to be the person who served up a great example of one of the reasons for the bargain bin treatment of "intellectuals", particularly the more holier-than-thou ones. And that was the sub-topic du jour after all.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-16-2010 02:31 PM

I really think that what Craig is describing is less a failure of the scientific community and just another failure of our media.

DaddyTorgo 09-16-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2349588)
Therein lies the crux of the issue, I fear. You're looking at it backwards from the get-go.

There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion.

Again FTR, this wasn't about bashing you, you happened to be the person who served up a great example of one of the reasons for the bargain bin treatment of "intellectuals", particularly the more holier-than-thou ones. And that was the sub-topic du jour after all.

"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"


LMAO.

THERE IS NO CERTAINTY THAT ACCOMPANIES RELIGION.

Seriously. As usual, you're bonkers.

Hypothetically...put my life in the hands of a scientist or religion, with one chance to save it? I'm taking the scientist 10 times out of 10. Without an instant's hesitation.

And frankly, even the majority of religious people agree I would contend. Otherwise they'd all be Christian Scientists praying for good health and low cholesterol.

There isn't 100% certainty with science, but the certainty with science is vastly more than the certainty with religion. Even everybody that I know that is religious would agree with that statement.

And this is where I should probably let this topic rest, because otherwise I have a feeling it's going to start getting increasingly ugly.

AENeuman 09-16-2010 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349576)

But I don't want to turn this into another science vs. religion debacle.

It's true though. Science brings actual facts...


So is it reilgious or science people who say they don't want to do something but then goes right ahead and does it? ;)


Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2349576)
Don't get me wrong...I know some very intelligent Black people (some of my best friends...). But they all have retained the ability to think for themselves rather than "taking the easy way out"


panerd 09-16-2010 02:53 PM

Me and DT probably agree on like 3 issues out of 1000's in the politics thread but Jon saying "There are those who attempt, persistently but in vain, to elevate science to the level of certainty that accompanies religion." is an absurd statement and DT is completely correct to respond to that nonsense. Don't care if this makes me sound arrogant but that is a really laughable statement.

molson 09-16-2010 02:56 PM

I've always thought that people who try to compare religion and science don't understand either very well.

panerd 09-16-2010 03:03 PM

I know very little about science and zero about the answers to life's questions but I can say with 99.999% certainty (and this doesn't involve much more than a high school logic course) that organized religion is complete bullshit. Sorry if this offends anyone. I don't question there may be a higher power but calling it Jesus and making up stories about it doesn't make that the correct answer even if 90% of the United States population believes it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.