Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds
-
I live just north of Georgia in the heart of Dixiecrat country. Almost everything you say is equally true of South Carolina - though Barr won't get very many votes (he's a phoney libertarian anyway). Around here almost all local elections are decided in the Democratic primary, but even though everyone has a drawl, they are bright enough to split the ticket and have gone Republican since '68 when it comes to the top of the national ticket. Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
All it takes is a 2-3% swing away from McCain in any direction. And Barr is a local favorite. I think Ron Paul drew well here too.
Oakman wrote:
he's a phoney libertarian anyway
Yeah, but i'd rather a phoney Libertarian than the other two alternatives., and the Constitution Party is just too Paleolithic...Where's old big-ears when we need him.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I've just had bad experiences in all the small towns I've lived in.
I lived in Peterborough, NH once upon a time. That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's the town Thornton Wilder wrote about in Our Town. That's the play that was banned in the Soviet Union in 1947, for making family life "too attractive."
I wonder if that decision was made by the same apparatchik who approved the movie The Grapes of Wrath expecting it to propagandize how unfair western capitalism was to the proles. The actual message that they took was: "even the very poor in the west are better off than we are". :doh: :laugh:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
What makes you think I like Obama's faith?
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you call all the Obama zealots, including 500,000 germans?
Your worst nightmare.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
So, no fear of theocracy there?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
We've always done that. Yet, no theocracy! Amazing!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
We've always done that. Yet, no theocracy! Amazing!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We've always done that
Which, of course, explains JFK's resounding defeat in 1960. It's always struck me odd that he actually thought that a Catholic could be elected President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Georgia could be different, of course, but I'd bet against it.
All it takes is a 2-3% swing away from McCain in any direction. And Barr is a local favorite. I think Ron Paul drew well here too.
Oakman wrote:
he's a phoney libertarian anyway
Yeah, but i'd rather a phoney Libertarian than the other two alternatives., and the Constitution Party is just too Paleolithic...Where's old big-ears when we need him.
-
Something deep inside of me prefers the U.S. to be "world power" than, say, China or Russia. It is therefore comforting to me to know that the leader of the U.S. isn't a dimwit. Given the current choices, I do not feel all that secure.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Something deep inside of me prefers the U.S. to be "world power" than, say, China or Russia.
Unfortunately I do not think that anyone could have prevented Russia's resurgence - though a saner trade policy might have at least slowed China's meteoric growth. I truly think it's time for the USA to worry about the New World, and let the Old World figure things out for itself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I am sure there is a Heinlein style joke in there somewhere.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
I am sure there is a Heinlein style joke in there somewhere.
Well there's this but it's not a joke, per se: "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." ~ RAH
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
He is not required to express himself about Obama when discussing Palin. He is especially not required to make sure that you understand his views on all peripherally related matters when responding to a particular post.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed all the rage at American theocracies and all you posted in regard to Obama.
He is not required to express himself about Obama when discussing Palin. He is especially not required to make sure that you understand his views on all peripherally related matters when responding to a particular post.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I never said he was required to. Still, it is curious that Palin seems to present far more of a concern in terms of theocracy than does a guy who's entire political career was associated with a church that defines its very politics on its radicalized religion.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
A theocracy won't happen in America, the day it does it won't be America anymore. But I differ from many here in that I don't think having some faith is the worst thing that can possibly happen to people.
I think a pseudo-theocracy is not improbably. Already with the creationist movement there is a plausible threat. I also see religion creeping more and more into politics to the point where I believe the majority of voters are selecting candidates based on their religious views and beliefs.
BoneSoft wrote:
What about her faith based values do you find so troublesome?
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Everything. I think evangelical style religion is a threat to societal progress based on history both ancient and modern. When God becomes an impetus for political decisions it is time to be afraid.
I think you are blurring two things that can be looked at separately. It is possible to believe in a God without belonging to any organized religion. Religions whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Evangelical or Zorastianism are man-made and pretty much by definition are focused on controlling behavior. After all, the more control they exert, the better their chief priests are paid. So, for me, it is not God or a belief in Him that is worrisome - it is the willingness to accept some other man's word for what God wants to see happen here on earth. In all fairness, I would argue that the likes of Billy Graham are a major step up from the Divine Right of Kings or the elevation of someone like Mao to god-like status.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I never said he was required to. Still, it is curious that Palin seems to present far more of a concern in terms of theocracy than does a guy who's entire political career was associated with a church that defines its very politics on its radicalized religion.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Still, it is curious that Palin seems to present far more of a concern in terms of theocracy than does a guy who's entire political career was associated with a church that defines its very politics on its radicalized religion.
In a thread dealing with Palin it makes great good sense, doesn't it? Or are we discussing whose ox gets gored?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Still, it is curious that Palin seems to present far more of a concern in terms of theocracy than does a guy who's entire political career was associated with a church that defines its very politics on its radicalized religion.
In a thread dealing with Palin it makes great good sense, doesn't it? Or are we discussing whose ox gets gored?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
In a thread dealing with Palin it makes great good sense, doesn't it? Or are we discussing whose ox gets gored?
There have been plenty of threads on Obama - I don't recall any raging theocracy fear mongering from Zeppy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We've always done that
Which, of course, explains JFK's resounding defeat in 1960. It's always struck me odd that he actually thought that a Catholic could be elected President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
American politicians, including Kennedy, have always been obliged to acknowledge the nation's obsession with religion and to assert their membership in it. The only thing new these days is that the left has began to rationalize their entire political agenda by relating it to christianity itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Where's old big-ears when we need him.
I've thought the same, more times than I'd like to admit, recently.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
LIbertarians suck anyway and are not the heirs of Jeffersonian democracy. we conservatives own that. They are a complete waste of time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
American politicians, including Kennedy, have always been obliged to acknowledge the nation's obsession with religion and to assert their membership in it. The only thing new these days is that the left has began to rationalize their entire political agenda by relating it to christianity itself.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
LIbertarians suck anyway and are not the heirs of Jeffersonian democracy. we conservatives own that. They are a complete waste of time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we conservatives own that.
God help the Conservatives if you are qualified to speak for them. As for Jefferson, I have used his own words to prove, time and again, that he was indeed a Libertarian. That you deny the validity of what he said shows only that that you would rather have your beliefs than learn the truth.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Totally unresponsive. A pathetic answer. You should strive to do better.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Bullshit. Palin is in precisely the tradition of American politicians, Obama is not. He is the true theocrat in this race, not her.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The most amazing part is the amount of energy the Democrats are wasting in attacking her. The Republicans have the Dems completely distracted into a pointless argument that they can only look foolish over. By obsessing over Palin, they are on their way to once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 54 days to go...
Looks that way from here too. Best policy would have been to ignore her. Now she's got a cult following and celebrity status.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.