Pa said it's impolite to talk politics

   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34  

The Sideshow
Posted in: Off Topic

Reply
  • User avatar
jwg63 wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
Thotfulspot wrote:
Typical Saturday night during summer in Chicago is 3-4 deaths from shooting. It started early this year. Last weekend was 12 or 13 shot and 3 deaths. More Chicago school age kids were killed a week than Iraq. They spent billions in Iraq and they are closing police stations here in Chicago. The money spent in one day in Iraq was more than the yearly budget for police in Chicago.

So what's the tea party going to do about that?

So what's Occupy Wall St. going to do about that?

Fixed it for ya ;)

Occupy Wall St. is advocating raising taxes on the rich to pay for these things, whereas tea party representatives in Congress advocate cutting funding that is supporting state police, firemen, schoolteachers, etc.

Whether or not you agree with the Occupy movement, suggesting all these groups are the same is not justified.


That quote can be used in either way. It's two different views and it would best if both groups had their say. Both sides should answer. Those two groups have nothing in common beyond how strongly each group believes it is correct. The Occupy has probably alienated more people than the tea party. People look at them as a bunch of unwashed hippies. The time has come that the occupy movement has to enter the political conflict as an organized group to further their beliefs and pass them on to the people who need to know. Wisconsin is having a recall election for Govenor. Four tea party republicans have entered the race as democrats. That type of information needs to be passed on to the voters. The Occupy movement needs to organize and get the message out.

Toy Collection and other crap on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/thotfulspot/

  • User avatar
So that's enough politics. How about those Cubs?

Toy Collection and other crap on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/thotfulspot/

  • 1194 posts
  • from Huntsville, Alabama
  • profile
Thotfulspot wrote:
So that's enough politics. How about those Cubs?


:lol:

My own quick viewpoint when it comes to guns. I don't carry one, but I do have them in my home (locked in a safe where there is zero chance my daughter could get to them). I will also say that if it comes to someone breaking into my home and threatening my life, my daughter's life, or my husband's life I am prepared to use one of those guns. It would never be my first choice and I would try to avoid it if at all possible, but I know enough to know that you don't always get that option.


  • User avatar
theboywil wrote:
I have no desire to continue this discussion. But as you have asked me a question, I will answer that question. I am more than happy for you to voice your opinion (which I will read and will consider), but I will not be responding.

It is my personal belief that making a decision to carry a weapon (which is designed to end another person's life) indicates that you feel that it is right and proper to possess the ability end a person’s life as part of your day-to-day business. I do not believe that it is beneficial to society for it's members to routinely walk around fully prepared to end the lives of other members of that society.


So, as I understand it, your moral objection is really with killing and the contemplation that someone makes when he is willing to take a life. The weapon is incidental to your analysis. Any item is a weapon in the hands of a killer. Guns protect those too weak to stop the physically strong.
I disagree with your assessment that weapons are designed to end another person's life, and the characterization that they are tools of aggression, rather than protection. I feel this perspective belies a deep cynicism about humanity as a whole; that anyone who owns a particular type of weapon secretly believes that possession of that weapon entitles them to kill, or is already a killer-in-waiting by virtue of that weapon ownership. I disagree. I regard weapons as a practical response to the worst elements of humanity and as an equalizing deterrent that supports civilization, rather than compromises it. Like most inanimate objects, a gun is morally neutral...the evil is in the user. Or, put in more populist language: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Heavy wrenches, candlesticks, and household cleaners are also sometimes used to kill people. That doesn't make them "wrong."
Thank you for sharing your opinion, and for indulging mine.


leroidecoeur wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
leroidecoeur wrote:
A new study from the University of Arkansas links "low effort thought" with political conservatism.

And part of the study showed that political viewpoints of bar patrons with high blood alcohol levels tended to be more conservative than those of bar patrons with low blood alcohol levels. But it turns out the alcohol itself is not the cause.

The researchers concluded that "low-effort thought, which takes over as people's blood-alcohol level increases" also takes over "when they're forced to quickly process information," and it "boosted their penchant for politically conservative views." According to the study, increased "cognitive load" made people more conservative, "implying our brains can only handle so much before they eschew liberal ideologies."

What I take away from the study is this: Those with a tendency to become overloaded with information quicker than the average person are more likely to have politically conservative viewpoints than the average person. And the more confused (cognitively overloaded) a person becomes, the more likely they are to adopt politically conservative viewpoints.

Link to article: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322787
.



:lol: you can't actually believe that has ANY sort of correlation with the majority of people... :lol:

Laughing off every study that comes along without ever citing a serious flaw in any of them is a familiar tactic that lacks any valid arguments to prove your point.

When you say, "majority of people," do you mean the majority of people with politically conservative viewpoints? If so, the answer is "no." The study does not show, nor does it claim to show, that ALL people with politically conservative viewpoints are low-effort thinkers. The study shows that low-effort thinkers are likely to have politically conservative views. There's a difference.



Rich, you'll never see the "serious flaw" no matter how many times I try to point you in the right direction. If you don't see the "serious flaw" I don't believe you ever will.

the "research" reeks of scientific bigotry. Scientific racism was also used once to persuade people to think differently... the name Lothrop Stoddard and many others like him come to mind.

One of the authors, Scott Eidelman, is clearly a liberal as his Facebook page admits to it. I'm pretty sure if I did enough digging I could find out about the others as well.

*edit* did some more searching…. Chris Crandall is also liberal from as far as I can tell. At the very least he’s an Obama backer. How much you wanna bet they ALL are?


As for your question, the research paper clearly states their perceived boundaries. I’d suggest that you read them.

Also, I’d like to note that the bar is a very important determining factor in this study-- at least in Study 1. For example, I wonder what the study would have shown if this was conducted at a gay bar…

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229

jwg63 wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
The problem I have with the Trayvon/Zimmerman thing is that nobody knows yet what actually happened and everyone wants to cast judgement on it. Maybe it was self-defense and maybe it was not, but I think everyone should let the legal system deal with it.

The problem I have with it is that the legal system was apparently not pursuing it. Zimmerman had not been charged or arrested. Without the "hype" you're complaining about, that might never have happened.

jaysea420 wrote:
Maybe I sound callus about it, but every year, if not ever couple months, news networks get ahold of some court case, or legal battle, or criminal incident and hype it up for months and months and months. There's no difference between what they do with this case and any other that they do it to.

Yes, there is. In pretty much all of those cases, there is an active legal investigation proceeding. Conservatives keep throwing out such examples, as if people are suggesting it was Zimmerman's actions that are unprecedented and the reason for protests, etc.

What people are up in arms about is that the *legal system* in Florida, the government, had not charged the admitted shooter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black youth, and did not even appear to be fully investigating the matter, and because many people did not think that would have happened if the young man were white.

And yes, shots against Fox News; this case provides a wonderful demonstration of why they deserve them. Most of the Fox News watchers I've talked to are unaware of the facts above. Bill O'Reilly certainly seemed unaware, when he suggested on his show that the judge should impose a gag order. (There were no charges against Zimmerman, therefore no case, therefore no judge, therefore no gag order.) Conservatives like to ridicule the studies that show that watching Fox News leads to people being *less* informed about current events, but here is a case where we could see it unfold in front of us.



Well, now he is charged, so let it drop.

Mind you he was ONLY charged AFTER NBC spliced together audio to make things seem like something they weren’t. Only after the media tried to make this a white/black thing. He was ONLY charged after people were out for blood. People shot at cop cars, the black panthers basically put a bounty on the man’s head, people were ignorantly marching, innocent old people were forced from their home because of death threats, etc.

I’d also like to point out that Zimmerman himself called 911. Yeah, he admitted to the shooting AND cooperated completely with police. Like I said, let's just let the legal system sort it out. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If not, he'll be released. Of course if he's released the same people who are fighting for something they have no knowledge of will still cry foul.

BTW, if the young man were white nothing would have ever been done about it. It wouldn’t have been “sensational” enough for the media to jump on the bandwagon because that type of shit happens ALL THE TIME.

As for the 'less informed FOX viewers' section of your comment, I’d suggest you read up on it. I’m pretty positive I’ve already spoken about this matter on these boards before and I personally don’t feel like regurgitating it.

Here’s a link for you though: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/


jwg63 wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
a dialogue about what exactly? What should people be talking about?

Whether the way the police behaved on the night of the incident was reasonable and correct. Whether the state attorney and police chief were interpreting the "stand your ground" law correctly (note that many conservatives and gun owners have suggested it shouldn't apply here). Whether the other 60-70 fatal shootings of unarmed people that have apparently been dismissed under the "stand your ground" law in Florida should get similar attention.


LOL!!! OK…

So much wrong with this comment I don't know where to start...


jwg63 wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
Thotfulspot wrote:
Typical Saturday night during summer in Chicago is 3-4 deaths from shooting. It started early this year. Last weekend was 12 or 13 shot and 3 deaths. More Chicago school age kids were killed a week than Iraq. They spent billions in Iraq and they are closing police stations here in Chicago. The money spent in one day in Iraq was more than the yearly budget for police in Chicago.

So what's the tea party going to do about that?

So what's Occupy Wall St. going to do about that?

Fixed it for ya ;)

Occupy Wall St. is advocating raising taxes on the rich to pay for these things, whereas tea party representatives in Congress advocate cutting funding that is supporting state police, firemen, schoolteachers, etc.

Whether or not you agree with the Occupy movement, suggesting all these groups are the same is not justified.


No… they are advocating taxing the rich for free college and free doughnuts and free ponies. Exactly how many rich people do you think there are? Trust me when I say there isn’t enough rich people in the world to pay for everything those silly Occupiers think should be given to them for free.

I’ve known TONS of Occupiers and there are only two that I even remotely respect on political matters… and half the time I point things out to them that Occupy stands for, but they do not. One doesn’t even consider himself an Occupier. More it’s he empathizes with them. The other I think did it more to be part of the moment really than anything else as he was there in NYC observing it all.

In my mind, though, Occupiers are just wannabe Tea Partiers. An ill-informed, immature, selfish version of them at the very least.

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229

Thotfulspot wrote:
The Occupy movement needs to organize and get the message out.



:lol:

yeah, that will never happen...

They kind of screwed themselves when they destroyed children's art and had a “moment of silence and solidarity” for Obama's would-be assassin…

http://youtu.be/HrNbAe7dOGA


:lol:


I mean, REALLY? Who the hell destroys the artwork of children?!?!?!?

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229

  • User avatar
jaysea420 wrote:
jwg63 wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
a dialogue about what exactly? What should people be talking about?

Whether the way the police behaved on the night of the incident was reasonable and correct. Whether the state attorney and police chief were interpreting the "stand your ground" law correctly (note that many conservatives and gun owners have suggested it shouldn't apply here). Whether the other 60-70 fatal shootings of unarmed people that have apparently been dismissed under the "stand your ground" law in Florida should get similar attention.


LOL!!! OK…

So much wrong with this comment I don't know where to start...

So, the police chief has stepped down, the original state attorney recused himself, a special prosecutor was assigned, the governor announced the formation of a task force to examine the "stand your ground" law, and that this examination should go beyond the Trayvon Martin case, but you think it's ridiculous to even suggest discussing these things? Even if you think this is all due to political pressue and none of it was justified, wouldn't that merit discussion?

jaysea420 wrote:
jwg63 wrote:
What people are up in arms about is that the *legal system* in Florida, the government, had not charged the admitted shooter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black youth, and did not even appear to be fully investigating the matter, and because many people did not think that would have happened if the young man were white.


Well, now he is charged, so let it drop.

Actually, I agree with that part. In fact, I was OK with seeing how the legal system would respond after a special prosecutor was assigned to the case. Of course, he was only charged last Wednesday. Did you only get "tired of the hype" last Thursday?

jaysea420 wrote:
Mind you he was ONLY charged AFTER NBC spliced together audio to make things seem like something they weren’t. Only after the media tried to make this a white/black thing. He was ONLY charged after people were out for blood. People shot at cop cars, the black panthers basically put a bounty on the man’s head, people were ignorantly marching, innocent old people were forced from their home because of death threats, etc.

Mind you, reports say the police wanted to charge Zimmerman that first night, and the state attorney disagreed. That lead to the people losing confidence in their law enforcement community, which leads to a lot of bad things. But you don't think the behavior of the police and state attorney even merits discussion.

And "people were ignorantly marching"? Yeah, no bias there. They were marching because they didn't think the police and state attorney acted correctly. They got the police chief and state attorney removed. Those poor, ignorant fools.

BTW, the Black Panthers did not put a bounty on Zimmerman's head. That was the "New Black Panther Party" which has been roundly condemned from all sides of the political spectrum, including the original Black Panthers. I'd be happy to see legal action against them on this, if anything can be proven.

jaysea420 wrote:
BTW, if the young man were white nothing would have ever been done about it. It wouldn’t have been “sensational” enough for the media to jump on the bandwagon because that type of shit happens ALL THE TIME.

There are cases where a Hispanic man shot an unarmed young white man (because that's how it would have been cast if the victim were white) and the Hispanic man was let go without charges? They didn't even take his gun? I was not aware that happened all the time. Can you provide examples? Why isn't Nancy Grace all over this?

I actually agree that none of this would have happened if the victim were white, but that's because I think they would have charged Zimmerman sooner, probably the first night.

jaysea420 wrote:
jwg63 wrote:
Occupy Wall St. is advocating raising taxes on the rich to pay for these things, whereas tea party representatives in Congress advocate cutting funding that is supporting state police, firemen, schoolteachers, etc.

Whether or not you agree with the Occupy movement, suggesting all these groups are the same is not justified.


No… they are advocating taxing the rich for free college and free doughnuts and free ponies. Exactly how many rich people do you think there are? Trust me when I say there isn’t enough rich people in the world to pay for everything those silly Occupiers think should be given to them for free.

Wow, building your own strawmen to tilt against. Hope you're enjoying yourself. No, I don't think I'll "trust you" on statements like this.

jaysea420 wrote:
In my mind, though, Occupiers are just wannabe Tea Partiers. An ill-informed, immature, selfish version of them at the very least.

Suggesting you think that Tea Partiers are well-informed, mature and unselfish. Yeah, definitely not going to be trusting your opinions.

jaysea420 wrote:
As for the 'less informed FOX viewers' section of your comment, I’d suggest you read up on it.

If you can presume to speak for the whole Occupy movement based on the people you've talked to, can't I do the same for Fox News viewers? It's only fair.

-- Joe --
"Someday, you could just walk past a fez."
"Never gonna happen."

  • User avatar
  • 1166 posts
  • from Columbus, Ohio
  • profile
jaysea420 wrote:


Mind you he was ONLY charged AFTER NBC spliced together audio to make things seem like something they weren’t. Only after the media tried to make this a white/black thing. He was ONLY charged after people were out for blood. People shot at cop cars, the black panthers basically put a bounty on the man’s head, people were ignorantly marching, innocent old people were forced from their home because of death threats, etc.



What the.... Jay, c'mon now, do not give Ohio a bad name with this diatribe please.

Image

Rivet
1200 N. High St.
Columbus, OH 43201
614-294-TOYS (8697)
http://www.rivetgallery.com

  • User avatar
  • 3066 posts
  • from Portland, OR
  • profile
jaysea420 wrote:
leroidecoeur wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:
leroidecoeur wrote:
A new study from the University of Arkansas links "low effort thought" with political conservatism.

And part of the study showed that political viewpoints of bar patrons with high blood alcohol levels tended to be more conservative than those of bar patrons with low blood alcohol levels. But it turns out the alcohol itself is not the cause.

The researchers concluded that "low-effort thought, which takes over as people's blood-alcohol level increases" also takes over "when they're forced to quickly process information," and it "boosted their penchant for politically conservative views." According to the study, increased "cognitive load" made people more conservative, "implying our brains can only handle so much before they eschew liberal ideologies."

What I take away from the study is this: Those with a tendency to become overloaded with information quicker than the average person are more likely to have politically conservative viewpoints than the average person. And the more confused (cognitively overloaded) a person becomes, the more likely they are to adopt politically conservative viewpoints.

Link to article: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322787
.



:lol: you can't actually believe that has ANY sort of correlation with the majority of people... :lol:

Laughing off every study that comes along without ever citing a serious flaw in any of them is a familiar tactic that lacks any valid arguments to prove your point.

When you say, "majority of people," do you mean the majority of people with politically conservative viewpoints? If so, the answer is "no." The study does not show, nor does it claim to show, that ALL people with politically conservative viewpoints are low-effort thinkers. The study shows that low-effort thinkers are likely to have politically conservative views. There's a difference.



Rich, you'll never see the "serious flaw" no matter how many times I try to point you in the right direction. If you don't see the "serious flaw" I don't believe you ever will.

the "research" reeks of scientific bigotry. Scientific racism was also used once to persuade people to think differently... the name Lothrop Stoddard and many others like him come to mind.

One of the authors, Scott Eidelman, is clearly a liberal as his Facebook page admits to it. I'm pretty sure if I did enough digging I could find out about the others as well.

*edit* did some more searching…. Chris Crandall is also liberal from as far as I can tell. At the very least he’s an Obama backer. How much you wanna bet they ALL are?


As for your question, the research paper clearly states their perceived boundaries. I’d suggest that you read them.

Also, I’d like to note that the bar is a very important determining factor in this study-- at least in Study 1. For example, I wonder what the study would have shown if this was conducted at a gay bar…

They're probably "liberals" because they're intelligent, high-effort thinkers. It was a University of Arkansas Study... not exactly a bastion of liberalism.

I would think the results in a gay bar would probably be about the same as what they already found. I can't even begin to imagine a legitimate reason you brought that up. Maybe you could explain your thoughts in more detail... How do you believe the results of the study, if it was conducted in a gay bar, would be different, and why? I'd love to hear the views of an open-minded conservative like you on the subject you raised.

Image

  • User avatar
Started this thread with the discussion I just moved from the What are you thinking thread. Figured politics should stay in one place so those who want to avoid the conversation can.
Sorry if it's out of order or I screwed things up- feel free to spank me.

Play nice.


  • User avatar
  • 3066 posts
  • from Portland, OR
  • profile
Stay away from this thread and it will be even easier to stay completely disengaged from icky boring stuff that affects everyone's future.

Image

  • User avatar
jaysea420 wrote:

Also, I’d like to note that the bar is a very important determining factor in this study-- at least in Study 1. For example, I wonder what the study would have shown if this was conducted at a gay bar…


that everyone involved is FABULOUS!


  • User avatar
  • 2453 posts
  • from San Francisco
  • profile
merrybee wrote:
Thotfulspot wrote:
So that's enough politics. How about those Cubs?


:lol:

My own quick viewpoint when it comes to guns. I don't carry one, but I do have them in my home (locked in a safe where there is zero chance my daughter could get to them). I will also say that if it comes to someone breaking into my home and threatening my life, my daughter's life, or my husband's life I am prepared to use one of those guns. It would never be my first choice and I would try to avoid it if at all possible, but I know enough to know that you don't always get that option.


You also forgot that when the zombies take over you are prepared


Rivet wrote:
jaysea420 wrote:


Mind you he was ONLY charged AFTER NBC spliced together audio to make things seem like something they weren’t. Only after the media tried to make this a white/black thing. He was ONLY charged after people were out for blood. People shot at cop cars, the black panthers basically put a bounty on the man’s head, people were ignorantly marching, innocent old people were forced from their home because of death threats, etc.



What the.... Jay, c'mon now, do not give Ohio a bad name with this diatribe please.




Yeah, I probably could have watered it down for public consumption, but the point is when things started getting more violent more things were done about it. It's not like those incidents didn't happen though.

"We're slaves to gizmos and toys." - George Carlin

My WTB list:
http://www.circusposterus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2229


   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34  

The Sideshow
Posted in: Off Topic

Reply

Topic tools: ← Previous topicNext topic →


remember me?

Time : 0.817s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off