I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby aunt betty » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:13 am

Moaning about how terrible O'bama is deflects the fact that they lost the election to him because the GOP selected such incredible losers.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 9984
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!


Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:17 am

aunt betty wrote:Moaning about how terrible O'bama is deflects the fact that they lost the election to him because the GOP selected such incredible losers.

This was intentional. The candidates will always be pretty much the same from here on out...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56126
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:32 am

aunt betty wrote:Moaning about how terrible O'bama is deflects the fact that they lost the election to him because the GOP selected such incredible losers.

The country would be vastly better off if we were moaning about how terrible Romney or McCain is :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby TomKat » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:13 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:

Oh, I forgot......... no one is ever allowed to utter the name of GWB. Only in reverence, or in a church when we pray for him Sorry. This is such an idiotic conservative conceit.Name calling? I didn't "blame" the former president for anything (though God knows he's culpable for plenty) ofcourse its always his fault, thanks for throwing that in there. If I want to use GWB to illustrate a point, I'm damned well going to use GWB to illustrate a point. When are you righties going to get over your knee-jerk reaction on the man? I voted for Gary Johnson I'm so sick of watching you wet your pants any time I want to refer IN ANY WAY to the previous administration, screaming "Oh, you're blaming Bush. You're blaming Bush. Why can't you ever do anything but blame Bush" USING GWB IN A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE IS NOT BLAMING BUSH! Why are you blaming GW Bush again? For chrissakes this is ridiculous lets leave Christ out of this. Hasn't he done enough for you?
And is the concept of inaccurate extrapolation from the data at hand so foreign to you that you believe that you can pass off your ridiculously twisted opinions as fact simply by waving at a quote? Both parties do this. You do this. we all do this. I get what the writer said. I get what you tried to imply he meant. And most importantly, I get how long a walk it is between the two. Try and step it up a bit and stop being Spinner Lite, for chrissakes. I said to leave him out of this, save your filthy mouthed talk for your Socialist club meetings. At least he can back it up with some heavy hitting. Argue the issue at hand, not one you made up Why? You are the champion dancer of all time.
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:48 am

SpinnerMan wrote: The favorite of the liberals. Sure our guy failed, but we know your guy would have failed far worse.

I am just starting to follow this thread Spinner, but when you make statements such as this who are you referring to as "your guy"? Which one of the available GOP candidates would have been excelling at this point? I just want to know to whom we are referring in this question.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Andy W » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:47 am

SpinnerMan wrote:The only thing that matters seems to be

Image

It sure as hell is not the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the minorities in Democrat enclaves. Not their education, not their safety, nothing but their vote.


Yes, winning is most important.

From the 12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal:

8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That's because right and wrong don't come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.
Andy W
hunter
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:30 am
Location: KY

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:58 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: The favorite of the liberals. Sure our guy failed, but we know your guy would have failed far worse.

I am just starting to follow this thread Spinner, but when you make statements such as this who are you referring to as "your guy"? Which one of the available GOP candidates would have been excelling at this point? I just want to know to whom we are referring in this question.

Your guy - When the liberal guy's individual choice fails, even catastrophically as we see in Detroit, there is no self-reflection to say that maybe there is some fundamental flaw in what they do, and they simply assume that the political opponents have nothing to offer and had they won would have failed far more disastrously than they did. Look at the war on poverty, and look at the quagmire we are still in today. If Obama want to get out of a war dragging on, that's the won to end and walk away :thumbsup: ,Do the liberals have any doubt that what the conservatives wish to do would be any worse even though welfare reform forced upon Clinton was most certainly not a disaster. Of course, then they counter, but it was not perfect, so leave us to our disaster.

GOP excelling - this is the version of but the GOP is not perfect, so leave us to our disaster. It is human nature to judge people you like far more favorably than those you hate. It's why so much of politics is about demonizing your opponents and use words like uber, neo, extreme, out on the wing (fringe), and anything that has a visceral negative reaction.

NO GOP CANDIDATE WILL EXCEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO POLITICAL CANDIDATE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics are dominated by the political machines and big money machines. Just like every business, there are economies and diseconomies of scale. The bigger the central government and the bureaucracy, the bigger the advantage the political machines and other large political organization have and the last thing they want is an effective candidate. Effective by their definition is one that wins for generations and does what they want or does nothing. I'm guessing that is not your definition.

A small decentralized government, you as an individual can go into the government officials office and talk to him personally. Their kids will go to school with your kids. You'll see them at the store, out in the field hunting, little leaugue games, high school activities, etc. Most people will never interact in person with their representative in the House, let alone the Senate, or any bureaucrats in Washington. These people are so far removed that it's interesting to people that I actually ran into my House representative and talked to her at the airport, although I didn't realize that is who I was talking to until her chief of staff pointed it out :lol3: I've seen my Senators and Rahm Emmanuel and other House members. These people are like celebrities and not like representatives of the people. How can someone represent you if the odds are you or probably anyone you know will never have a personal interaction with them. This makes buying time with them, paying for their campaigns, etc. far more valuable when the celebutard politicians that will not have to interact with the people on a daily basis and live with the same of what they are doing daily.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby TomKat » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:24 am

What Spinner is trying to say is, VOTE LIBERTARIAN
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:47 am

TomKat wrote:What Spinner is trying to say is, VOTE LIBERTARIAN

In the Republican and Democrat primaries, but don't waste your vote otherwise :thumbsup:

Well, that is unless you planned on voting for the Democrat, then please vote libertarian on the 3rd Tuesday in Novermber. :biggrin:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby High Sierras » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:46 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Me and Spinner are good because, unlike you, we each bring something to the table to fight over. But here, I dumbed it down for ya and replaced the Bush stuff so's you wouldn't wet your pants anymore.

No, BDD2, I don't need you to bring it down to your level for me to 'get it', And it never had anything to do with Bush... Too bad you've been dumbed down so much you still can't see that.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Under Herbert Hoover, a whole lot of white folks were way worse off by the time he'd done doin' his thang there, so you gotta figure he was one horribly racist dude, of the anti-Caucasion persuasion, right? See, that's the kind of "logic" you're trying to pass off here. That better?


Why? Because you're poor attempt in trying to use a meaningless anecdote about George Bush to deflect the bad press from obama didn't work, now you're going to try another meaningless anecdote about Herbert Hoover and hope for different results? Why don't you try typing in all caps... talking louder won't help you change the fact the article (not me) states that as a whole, blacks are worse off under obama's racist policies either.

I know...sing us a song, maybe everyone will shift focus from obamas failing as as a president to your fantastic opera voice. Perhaps one from Peter Paul & Mary, or the Beatles. Sing us a good ol' hippy protest song. That will get folks minds off the community organizer's foibles for a few minutes!

blackduckdog2 wrote:Here let me explain the actual point in question as well, since you're having so much trouble with it. The fact that a certain group of voters may not be faring particularly well under a certain administration does not mean that administration is not doing everything it can to alleviate those circumstances. It may be, or it may not be. Insisting that it does only shows your Obama hating agenda. But of course, since pretty much everything you post shows little but your Obama hating agenda, it shouldn't come as a real shock. (it didn't)

Yeah right, obama and the dems are 'doing everything it can to alleviate those circumstances' for black Americans. Like keeping them dependent on the government cheese. Like keeping them dependent on subsidized housing. Like keeping them marching for race hucksters like Al Sharpton andthe Rev. Jackson. Like playing Santa Claus for them with free obamaphones, free healthcare, free chit from 'other peoples' money... if they'll just keep him in power to 'protect' them from the evil whitey. Like telling them his fictitous son looked just like a low-grade thug from the ghetto to fan the race flames just a little brighter. Like dividing this country across racial lines to keep their voter base in fear of what will happen "They gonna keep all ya' all in CHAAAINS!!!". Is that the kind of 'help' you think the black community needs? Really? Are you in on the racist agenda as well, or just filling the role as one of the usefull idiots trying to fragment this country into a squablle of hyphenated-Americans?

Oh, and again, I didn't say:
"There’s no questioning the symbolic value of electing a black president. Yet the fact remains that African-Americans are no better off materially as a result, even if they may have been worse off had he lost, and that the economic gap between blacks and whites has grown under his presidency. The ascent of America’s first black president has coincided with the descent of black Americans’ standard of living. Reasonable people may disagree on the extent to which Obama is responsible for that. But the fact is undeniable."

But your faulty reading comprehension just won't let you see that. And no form of dumbing it down will be able to reach the pit of ignorance you've dug yourself into. And for that I pity you.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:20 pm

Oh for chrissakes HS, YES... I saw what the writer wrote. Each of the half dozen times you posted it. And if you'd just left it at that, we'd have avoided all this tedium. Now listen..........I have no quibble with the author, it's your editorializing over his intentions and projected subtext with which I take issue. I CANNOT believe that is so hard for you to wrap your head around
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6286
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:16 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Under Herbert Hoover, a whole lot of white folks were way worse off by the time he'd done doin' his thang there, so you gotta figure he was one horribly racist dude, of the anti-Caucasion persuasion, right? See, that's the kind of "logic" you're trying to pass off here. That better?

No, but it would make them a damn fool or at least completely wrong if they voted for him because he was white and they thought that would help white people. The same for the man that followed him who took a depression and made it great.

Hey, maybe it is a good analogy, many people had irrational beliefs about what Obama was going to do for them and all he did was take a recession and make it great.

And look at Syria, Russia, Iran, China, ... maybe Obama will end the economic malaise in the same way too :eek:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:39 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:Under Herbert Hoover, a whole lot of white folks were way worse off by the time he'd done doin' his thang there, so you gotta figure he was one horribly racist dude, of the anti-Caucasion persuasion, right? See, that's the kind of "logic" you're trying to pass off here. That better?

SpinnerMan wrote: No, but it would make them a damn fool or at least completely wrong if they voted for him because he was white and they thought that would help white people. The same for the man that followed him who took a depression and made it great.


And do you honestly believe that would not have happened had he been running against a black man? We overwhelmingly, vastly predominately, vote for the person/party we feel will benefit us, personally, the most.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby TomKat » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:11 am

Can't we all just get along?
Image
User avatar
TomKat
Dorothy
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:18 am
Location: NE Kansas

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:49 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:Under Herbert Hoover, a whole lot of white folks were way worse off by the time he'd done doin' his thang there, so you gotta figure he was one horribly racist dude, of the anti-Caucasion persuasion, right? See, that's the kind of "logic" you're trying to pass off here. That better?

SpinnerMan wrote: No, but it would make them a damn fool or at least completely wrong if they voted for him because he was white and they thought that would help white people. The same for the man that followed him who took a depression and made it great.


And do you honestly believe that would not have happened had he been running against a black man? We overwhelmingly, vastly predominately, vote for the person/party we feel will benefit us, personally, the most.

Yes, but voting based on feelings is a damn fool way to vote, is it not?

Admitting your mistakes is the first step to learning from those mistakes.

I voted for Obama over Hillary in the primary. My reason was because I figured he would the incompetent fool that he is because of his total lack of relevant experience and that would be less harmful than the efficiency of the Clinton machine with Hillary and not Bill in charge. I was wrong in a big way for two main reasons. First, I never imagined his coat tails and his filibuster proof majority (we were one Senator away from far less harm from this incompetent fool). Second, I never imagined the level of weakness that he would project to the world. Hillary would have been vastly better than Obama. I'm really worried what the world will look like after 3+ more years of this indecisive fool.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:15 pm

And do you honestly believe that would not have happened had he been running against a black man? We overwhelmingly, vastly predominately, vote for the person/party we feel will benefit us, personally, the most.[/quote]
SpinnerMan wrote: Yes, but voting based on feelings is a damn fool way to vote, is it not?



I would academically say yes, Spinner, it is a foolish way to vote. I would also say that at least 99% of the population does it and then strives mightily to justify it intellectually. Besides, our feelings are oftentimes the conclusion of a great deal of intellectual interpretation. To put them in the same general category as those emotions which, barring the existence of existential absolutes, are the equivalent of what a 2nd grade boy feels for his pretty teacher is a little disingenuous and manipulative.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:02 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:And do you honestly believe that would not have happened had he been running against a black man? We overwhelmingly, vastly predominately, vote for the person/party we feel will benefit us, personally, the most.

SpinnerMan wrote: Yes, but voting based on feelings is a damn fool way to vote, is it not?



I would academically say yes, Spinner, it is a foolish way to vote. I would also say that at least 99% of the population does it and then strives mightily to justify it intellectually. Besides, our feelings are oftentimes the conclusion of a great deal of intellectual interpretation. To put them in the same general category as those emotions which, barring the existence of existential absolutes, are the equivalent of what a 2nd grade boy feels for his pretty teacher is a little disingenuous and manipulative.

It's not just foolish in an academic sense. It is foolish in a practical sense, common sense, real world sense.

I would say that 99% of liberals do it. I'll agree with that 100%.

But yes, people never want to admit they were foolish no matter how clear the writing on the wall.

Sometimes the best you can do is go on your feelings, but it is critical to know that you are going on no more than that.

I believe

I think

I know

They have wildly different meanings, but are often used without any distinction.

The time I saw Rahm Emanuel in person on an airplane, I knew :wink: he could not be trusted. The way he carried himself, dressed, etc. it was clear he was a shyster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to disregard your feelings because there is often a lot more to it, but it is vital to know the basis for your decisions because that helps inform you on the certainty of that decision. Would I through Rahm in jail because of this? No. But I wouldn't neglect it other and proceed with additional caution if I were to ever deal with him. The reverse is also true. If your reaction is at first positive, you don't throw caution to the wind.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:36 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:And do you honestly believe that would not have happened had he been running against a black man? We overwhelmingly, vastly predominately, vote for the person/party we feel will benefit us, personally, the most.

SpinnerMan wrote: Yes, but voting based on feelings is a damn fool way to vote, is it not?



I would academically say yes, Spinner, it is a foolish way to vote. I would also say that at least 99% of the population does it and then strives mightily to justify it intellectually. Besides, our feelings are oftentimes the conclusion of a great deal of intellectual interpretation. To put them in the same general category as those emotions which, barring the existence of existential absolutes, are the equivalent of what a 2nd grade boy feels for his pretty teacher is a little disingenuous and manipulative.

It's not just foolish in an academic sense. It is foolish in a practical sense, common sense, real world sense.

I would say that 99% of liberals do it. I'll agree with that 100%.

But yes, people never want to admit they were foolish no matter how clear the writing on the wall.

Sometimes the best you can do is go on your feelings, but it is critical to know that you are going on no more than that.

I believe

I think

I know

They have wildly different meanings, but are often used without any distinction.

The time I saw Rahm Emanuel in person on an airplane, I knew :wink: he could not be trusted. The way he carried himself, dressed, etc. it was clear he was a shyster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to disregard your feelings because there is often a lot more to it, but it is vital to know the basis for your decisions because that helps inform you on the certainty of that decision. Would I through Rahm in jail because of this? No. But I wouldn't neglect it other and proceed with additional caution if I were to ever deal with him. The reverse is also true. If your reaction is at first positive, you don't throw caution to the wind.

That's well put Spinner and is essentially what I was saying. "Feeling" does not of necessity mean simply a hormonal reaction. To state that liberals do it to a higher degree than conservatives is a good example of the unreliability of putting more stock in feelings than considered observation. Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's "vast" audience is really there for the education or the entertainment value?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:51 pm

Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:04 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's "vast" audience is really there for the education or the entertainment value?
Like all talk shows, entertainment is the more important factor by far if you desire a large audience. Read his first book. He talks about this and you don't argue with success. Few people are like me with an economics textbook as recreational reading while sitting on the throne.

BTW, what's with the quotes around vast? If he doesn't have a vast audience, who does?

assateague wrote:Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".

Not everything is a value judgment, but when it is a value judgment, if at all possible, you should avoid imposing your values upon another person. However, sometimes it is simply necessary to impose value judgments upon other people. For example, speed limits are value judgments. Environmental regulations are value judgments. Most of what government should do (yes a value judgment) is a value judgment. When it is a value judgment it should be made at the lowest level of government practical because that is where the judgment made by government is most likely to be representative of the largest fraction of the people.

Of course when you are stuck by choosing the elected officials by little more than your feelings, it's just damn foolish to give them any more power than absolutely necessary. You wouldn't give a person the keys to your house based on your feelings, but we give the keys to start wars, take our wealth and spend it as they see fit, run our health care, run our retirement, etc. based on our feelings.

I may have learned why people go for broke with politicians. I need to do some homework, but it seems to explain the irrational behavior that is so common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
The interplay of overweighting of small probabilities and concavity-convexity of the value function leads to the so-called fourfold pattern of risk attitudes: risk-averse behavior when gains have moderate probabilities and losses have small probabilities; risk-seeking behavior when losses have moderate probabilities and gains have small probabilities.

Since there is near unanimous agreement that politicians suck so gains are unlikely but losses are likely, it leads to risk-seeking behavior of handing over larger amounts of power than is rational based on the fact that it is very unlikely to get a government run by politicians that are both competent and not corrupt.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:07 pm

assateague wrote:Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".

Very, very well presented AT. Thus my objection at one political party being based on their conception of their "feelings". while the opposing parties positions being based upon rational, intellectually considered "facts" is ludicrous to me.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:09 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".

Very, very well presented AT. Thus my objection at one political party being based on their conception of their "feelings". while the opposing parties positions being based upon rational, intellectually considered "facts" is ludicrous to me.

So is there any justification for imposing your feelings on other people via the power of government? :huh:

Sounds like a rock solid argument for small decentralized government.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:27 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's "vast" audience is really there for the education or the entertainment value?

SpinnerMan wrote:Like all talk shows, entertainment is the more important factor by far if you desire a large audience. Read his first book. He talks about this and you don't argue with success. Few people are like me with an economics textbook as recreational reading while sitting on the throne.

BTW, what's with the quotes around vast? If he doesn't have a vast audience, who does?

Uh,let's see.....Howard Stern, Glenn Beck, "The Bachelorette", WWA, "Jersey Shores"', "The Housewives of...." "Honey Boo Boo"....would you like other examples of vastly popular media productions that are so imbued with insightful, society advancing attributes that completely and unquestionably justify their existence?
And by the way, if you are extolling a publication of Rush Limbaugh, I am afraid you are speaking to the wrong person. I would dedicate my life to attempting to grasp an understanding and agreement with "Mein Kampf" prior to reading a Rush Limbaugh publication.

assateague wrote:Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".

Not everything is a value judgment, but when it is a value judgment, if at all possible, you should avoid imposing your values upon another person. However, sometimes it is simply necessary to impose value judgments upon other people. For example, speed limits are value judgments. Environmental regulations are value judgments. Most of what government should do (yes a value judgment) is a value judgment. When it is a value judgment it should be made at the lowest level of government practical because that is where the judgment made by government is most likely to be representative of the largest fraction of the people.

Of course when you are stuck by choosing the elected officials by little more than your feelings, it's just damn foolish to give them any more power than absolutely necessary. You wouldn't give a person the keys to your house based on your feelings, but we give the keys to start wars, take our wealth and spend it as they see fit, run our health care, run our retirement, etc. based on our feelings.

I may have learned why people go for broke with politicians. I need to do some homework, but it seems to explain the irrational behavior that is so common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
The interplay of overweighting of small probabilities and concavity-convexity of the value function leads to the so-called fourfold pattern of risk attitudes: risk-averse behavior when gains have moderate probabilities and losses have small probabilities; risk-seeking behavior when losses have moderate probabilities and gains have small probabilities.

Since there is near unanimous agreement that politicians suck so gains are unlikely but losses are likely, it leads to risk-seeking behavior of handing over larger amounts of power than is rational based on the fact that it is very unlikely to get a government run by politicians that are both competent and not corrupt.[/quote]
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:45 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:Ultimately it's all "feeling", even if facts are logically considered. Each person's life experience will dictate how each fact (or set of facts) is weighted when they are making their decision. Thus a group of people, presented with an identical list of 5 possible facts and/or their consequent outcomes may choose widely varying options. Why? "Feelings".

Very, very well presented AT. Thus my objection at one political party being based on their conception of their "feelings". while the opposing parties positions being based upon rational, intellectually considered "facts" is ludicrous to me.

So is there any justification for imposing your feelings on other people via the power of government? :huh:

Sounds like a rock solid argument for small decentralized government.

No. At this time and place those are the cards we are dealt. We all have have some level of confidence, based upon SO MUCH personal experience, in the correctness of our convictions. When presented with an opportunity to express our particular view, it is rock solid argument for nothing but our preference of the choices given. It is most certainly not the venue for a radical change in process that is foreign to most, unintelligible to most, and not worth the effort to consider to most. If you care to change that ennui regarding our particular political system, you are a smart guy, Spin. Consider what can be done other than post opinions on a duck sluicing site! I would love to watch you on TV as the current incarnation of Jerry Rubin or Indira Ghandi and be able to tell my grandchildren that I used to converse with that guy.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10683
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: I remember the "I Have a Dream" speech

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:52 pm

OK Jim, I have never said that Rush is an educator and neither has Rush, so I really don't get your point. I am a firm believer in what Neil Boortz used to say which was something like don’t believe anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your own satisfaction.

Most errors we make are when we fail to be as skeptical as we should be. This is especially true when it comes to politicians. What I never get is why we fail to be skeptical of politicians when we know from the vast experience of history that they cannot be trusted and may be totally disastrous if given too much power with your Mein Kampf reference flagging what is possible in the real world.

Glimmerjim wrote:pin. Consider what can be done other than post opinions on a duck sluicing site!
I just want to be left the hell alone. Why do I have to fight against every damned liberal in the country in order to be left the hell alone? Live and let live. That's all I desire. I'll take responsibility for my life and you take for your and every other adult in the country does the same. Yet, the liberals insist on forcing their feelings upon me in all kinds of silly ways as opposed to fighting to help me to live my life the way I want to live my life without interference from other people that wish to take my life, liberty, or property without my consent or through fraud.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15808
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests