Rove is the ultimate snapshot of what politics is all about in the USA and shows that politics in the USA has nothing to do with "left" or "right", "conservatives" versus "liberals", "democrats" versus "republicans", fundamentalists versus gays and lesbians. It's all about getting power/control and money (without working for it) to the Elite.
If it's all about power, control, and money going to the Elite, then it is absolutely entirely "Right" by definition. "conservatives" versus "liberals" is meaningless as I said. Democrats versus Republicans is real as well, although it's mainly just a convention to divvy up the two "teams" which are inevitably created (intentionally or otherwise is irrelevant) by the way our system of voting was designed.
The fundamentalist attack on gays also fits neatly into the left-right divide. They think they're better so they want to use the power of the state to keep the gays down. The fact that they are getting screwed just as hard by the "Elite" as everybody else is is just a testament to how blind hatred leads to poor decision making. Both the fundie gay bashers and the "Elite" are right wing though in those specific contexts, so those classifications are still meaningful.
what you need to do is find out is - who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing. On any given day - the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. The Green Party and so on - will screw anyone, anytime to get control of the power and the money.
That is certainly true, but it's still totally inaccurate to say that there is no "left" and "right". It's not a question of whether or not they'll screw you but there is a meaningful distinction between how they'll screw you, who they'll screw (to a point) and most especially, what sweet nothings they whisper in your ear to get you to bend over and spread
For example, the classical lie/spin is that so-called "right" (Republican's) are all about smaller government - but everytime the Republicans take control - government grows like cancer.
Oh no... the old urban myth sprouts its ugly head again - "left" versus "right".
There is no "left" or "right"
There's kind of a grain of truth to what you say, but it's all mixed up and muddled.
"Left" and "Right" exist as ways of describing certain sets of political beliefs. They don't map well to "Democrat" and "Republican". Likewise neither of those map in any meaningful way with "Conservative" and "Liberal".
"Liberal" as used in America doesn't even relate to what the word used to mean and still does mean in most of the world.
Liberalism was the fundamental basis for this country when it was founded. It's a belief in individual liberty as opposed to rule by kings or priests or other "elites". That's why the seperation of church and state was far and away the most important and powerful defining factor in the creation of the nation. Democracy had long history as did Republics, so there really wasn't all that much new there.
"Left" and "Right" originated as terms prior to the French revolution when the first and second estates, the Nobility and the Church, sat on the right hand side while the representatives of the people, the third estate sat on the left.
In modern terms, they most accurate way I have heard them defined is by the nature of their opposition to Liberalism. The left supports the belief that all people are created equal (i.e. they believe in the idea of Liberalism), however they go further and believe that the power of the state should be used against individuals in order to enforce this equality. Obviously, this has led to some excesses from time to time (Da, comrade?)
The right, on the other hand rejects outright the idea that all people are created equal and believes in using the power of the state against people to maintain inequality to keep the rich rich and so forth.
That is why both the Right and the Left are in favor of big oppressive government and adamantly against real Liberalism.
In the US, Liberalism came to have a very different meaning over the years, in part due to subversion by the left and in part through the vitriolic attacks of the Right. At this point it has two distinctly different meanings in the US. When used as a term to describe oneself, it generally means one who does believe in treating people equally regardless of color, sexual persuasion etc. Additionally, it's often used to indicate belief in various socioeconomic ideas like affirmative action, welfare, social security etc. When used to describe another person it's typically just used as a meaningless epithet to say "they disagree with me in some way or other". Due to these (and other) factors the term is pretty vague and for the most part useless to accurately describe anything anymore.
"Conservative" is similarly meaningless. Often people try to use it as if it meant what it sounds like i.e. they're in favor of conserving something, usually described in vague fluffy terms like "traditional American values", but given the range of positions supported by people usign it to describe themselves, it's an essentially vacuous term as well. One typical example is the Pledge of Allegiance fiasco that keeps coming up. Nobody who cared at all about preserving traditional values and the like would want "under God" in the pledge since adding that was a radical change that flies in the face of what set this country apart from the rest of the world.
The original pledge is:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which its stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
No "God". No "United States of America" for that matter.
Anybody who wants it to say anything but that isn't a conservative, they're a radical with an agenda. Of course, the fact that we did quite
Hiring a celebrity to endorse your product is like posting a bond. The firm makes a substantial investment up front and reaps returs over a long period of time. A firm that expects to disappear in a year won't make such an investment."
I don't think that's really as certain as you seem to. I'm definitely not claiming that the producers, marketers or salespeople are not acting rationally in order to make as many bucks as they can. Even the fly by nights (assuming that they aren't a complete scam and actually have a product) have to make some sort of investment to get a return. Getting a big name celebrity to endorse their product would give that air of legitimacy just as it does for the "quality" company. It's just a numbers game to figure out if it's worth that investment. Pets.com did buy a Super Bowl ad after all.
I hold to the idea that people, on average, respond rationally to incentives, and attempt to find a way explain reality with that idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "incentives" exactly in this context. 0% financing is certainly a good deal and makes a great incentive to buy a car from that dealer especially if you're already looking. I think you're talking about something different though.
You just need to look at modern advertising to see that the people putting these campaigns together don't believe that people make rational decisions since they're almost all designed to make emotional appeals in order to cut rationality out of the loop.
There is an interesting article here about a study which disagrees with you.
Quoted from the link:
The study comes amid a burst of research into neuroeconomics, which studies the brain's role in buying and selling decisions. Economists have embraced the idea in recent years that irrational psychology, rather than cool calculation, plays a role in such decisions. The brain study goes further and suggests that emotions rule decisions almost completely.
Now you could make the argument that if an ad has put your brain in a panic state where it believes that if you don't have $COOL_NEW_THING then you'll be forever alone and miserable (exagerated version of what most ads attempt to accomplish, but not exagerated much for some) that then deciding to buy $COOL_NEW_THING is a rational decision, but that really isn't much of an argument since this is subverting rationality.
An argument has to be both valid and sound to be rational. "If A then B". In this case, A is "you don't have $COOL_NEW_THING so you'll be forever alone and miserable" B is "I should buy $COOL_NEW_THING".
Once you assume A, then B *is* a rational decision, hence the argument is valid. The fact that A is complete nonsense makes the argument not sound and hence irrational. It's a bad argument
The major focus of advertising is to deceive you into believing that A is true contrary to all logic or reason.
We have the most corrupt state government and the highest state taxes in the country.
You might win on taxes, but I live in Illinois;-)
Our previous governor (Republican) just got sentenced to 6.5 years in prison. Our current governor (Democrat) is under investigation for a variety of offenses. His opponent in the upcoming election (Republican) was the treasurer for the aforementioned jailbird and so either complicit or truly and deeply incompetent not to have noticed what was going on all around her.
You think you can beat that with "raise taxes to provide services".
My point was I was retracting my original statement because the original poster has already voluntarily taken part in the United States political system so he should be protected like anyone else.
Fair enough. That was really my only gripe. Personally, I'm somewhere in between you and he although leaning more his way as our debt spirals out of control due to some maniacs who are actively subverting the system which I did sign on for (according to your definition). I'd say since they broke the contract and are currently wiping their asses with it that it's pretty much null and void.
Anyhow, that's really neither here nor there. You did reasonably address my point of contention for which I thank you.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic.
Your call of shenanigans is denied due to extreme bogosity.
The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed.
Blagh blagh signed tax forms etc.
That wasn't the point to which I responded.
You said (essentially) that he would be unjustified in expecting police protection were he to be victimized by criminals.
I said (essentially) that regardless of his feelings about any of the above, that he has already paid for that exact protection and hence deserves it as much as you or I.
Had he said that he has refused to ever pay any taxes (or if you could show that that was the case) then you would have had a reasonable point.
So that particular argument of yours did nothing to refute any of the arguments he made.
You can only convince people to want things they did not before, perhaps on false information, but you still are convincing them to want something.
I don't disagree with you at all. That was actually my point. When you (well marketers, not *you*. Regardless of your profession, this isn't intended as a personal attack in any way) have convinced somebody to want something through various methods developed, very scientifically by marketing (and advertising its bastard child;-) that are in no way rational, then your original statement that I disagreed with is refuted.
I think you backed up my point right there.
If I were wrong, then commercials would be boring lists of facts and figures *rationally* proving the superiority of one product over another. The fact that you almost never (if ever) see anything of the sort proves my point.
If you still think I'm mistaken, would you mind trying to explain how?
* To convince people that a product offers something they want, * To convince people that they should want something the product offers, and * To raise awareness of a product.
This definition of rational in no way conflicts with marketing.
It does conflict when as happens quite often, the marketers manage to convince people of these things and these things are not true. Taste has nothing to do with it.
Marketing is quite often dedicated to convincing people that "foo is 20% better than the leading brand and will stop raping your dog like our previous product did" when *it isn't true* and a rational person would know that by using their rationality.
The science of marketing is evolving extremelky rapidly in order to convince people to buy worthless crap that they do not need.
It is true that often times especially with staples and such that it really is a toss up, and marketing can make the difference between equal choices.
It is also true that marketing uses a number of techniques designed for the specific purpose of suppressing rationality in decision making. You should look into the science that's gone into marketing in recent decades for this specific purpose.
Taste is irrelevant to my point. It's not a question of whether people choose to buy things that I think are lame or whatever. It's a question of people being manipulated into suppressing their rationality via marketing which is a major part of modern marketing techniques.
Economists assume that people act rationally in the presence of incentives on average, a hypothesis that no one has ever reproducibly shown false.
The entire basis for existence of of the field of marketing is the fact that that hypothesis is complete nonsense. The entire purpose of marketing is in causing people to not make rational decisions. Where does more money go, to economics, or to marketing?
Well, I'd love to see you try it, liberal manly man. LOL!! What a boob you are.
Now as soon as you can point to one thing I've said that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I'm a "liberal", then you will have shown yourself not to be a complete idiot. I'm not holding my breath though.
It really must be an interesting life you lead, Darby, what with all of that love pouring out of you 24/7. I'll bet you're just a hoot to hang out with! Everybody LOVES that Darby dude!!
Actually, lots of people do. I actually do have a lot of love pouring out of me, so to speak. It's why cowards like you who actively support torturing and murdering innocent people do piss me off. It takes a lot to do that, but you scum have crossed way the fuck over the line.
I'm laughing right now because I know people like you, Darby. It's pretty sad, really, all the obsessive hate. You really do need the couch time. Really. Look into it./i.
I doubt you do know people like me. Decent moral people like me don't hang out with amoral scum who support allowing the government to ship them off to death camps all that much. It's not a particularly good idea, what with your whole "lets go torture the innocent to death" thing you have going on.
Why can't politicians see that they're selling out their country by trying to protect it with more non-sense laws that are only in big corporations interests and NOT the peoples?
They can. It's not difficult, obscure, or in any way unclear. They know it perfectly well, but they don't care.
When will it end?
When we kill them. That's it. There is no other way.
So while I appreciate so much seeing your nose in our business, I'll vote for the best candidate for me and my state be it Democrat or Republican... not because of what some foreigner tries to tell me about the laws and statutes within my own country.
By restricting yourself to those 2 choices you have refused yourself the ability to vote for a good candidate, let alone the best. Sorry if you don't like that fact, but it is true.
Why would any senator ever vote for a bill that benefitted only one particular state?
Because that State's Senators made a reasonable, honest case for it. If they can't, then it doesn't get passed which in almost all cases is a net win for everybody. That way we wouldn't consistently have a large number of states paying nothing into the pool and taking massive amounts from the productive members of society as happens today.
I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either.
In point of fact, he would be perfectly justified in expecting help from the governmentally appointed law enforcement since he has already paid for it. The fact that he paid for it at gunpoint is completely irrelevant to the fact that he did pay his protection money.
The issue of whether or not he'd be silly to expect any *worthwhile* help in excahnge for his payment is a completely different subject.
t is a testament to Western-style Democracy that the system survives - and even thrives - despite corrupt politicians.
You seem to have an interesting definition of "thrive". I'd say it's currently tearing itself apart at the seams.
Despite what most Europeans think, George Bush's powers are *not* unlimited.
I don't know any Europeans who think that, and I know quite a few, being married to one and all.
One of the most serious problems facing us right now is the fact that Bush believes that his powers should be unlimited with no oversight and Congress is largely going along with it.
Congress ultimately controls the money, and congressmen serve the whims of their constituents to a far greater degree than the President.
I'm not sure if you mean that congressmen serve their constituents more than they serve the president or that they serve their constituents more than the president serves his. Either way, there is some truth to what you said, but they serve the whims of their party to a far greater degree than they do their country or their constituents. Hell, just look at McCain. Loses largely due to assaults on his patriotism by a coward and accusations of having a "black baby" and still licks Bush's boots. He is far and away the best that the Republicans have to offer and he has completely given up on serving his country in favor of his party.
Just ask Joe Lieberman - possibly the most honest guy in national American politics. He is now a private citizen.
Lieberman the most honest? Good lord. That is a pretty serious insult to people like Russ Feingold who actually have integrity. So much so that he even bothered to read the patriot act and therefore voted against it.
Ah, yes, the "murder a republican" moonbat rears his waterhead once again. You need some serious couch time, dude.
Ahhh, the ship innocent people off to camps to be tortured and murdered but heaven forbid you be held to account for your actions which are the provocation for the sig you no personal responsibility having typical cowardly Republican douchebag.
Sorry, no couch time needed. You've earned a bullet through the head by your support of treason, torture and murder. It's a simple matter of self defense. You and yours started actually torturing and murdering innocent people because you're too cowardly to deal with a threat head on.
I'm a libertarian AC supporting most of the present administrations policies albeit not in every detail nor implementation.
How can you consider yourself libertarian and support the most extreme authoritarian policies we've seen in a over a century, if ever?
That's truly amazing to me.
Detail or implementation are irrelevant compared to the policies themselves which are entirely anti-libertarian (or Liberal in the classical sense) in every aspect.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
Not at all. They refused to go along with Clinton's strategy and basically called off the dogs. Hell, Bush's ambassador to Yemen refused entry to the head of the joint CIA FBI task force that was on the job and getting close after the Cole bombing.
No, it's not to simply scare us, it's to scare us into doing what they want, you know, make policy changes. Now, if you want to give them whatever they want at the expense of our national interest, then I have a name for you; it starts with a "c" and rhymes with "howard"...
Yes, scare us into giving up everything that used to make us a shining beacon of freedom. Give up the liberty that used to define this country.
I agree completely that you and the rest of the idiots who still buy into your dear leader's lies are cowards pissing yellow down your legs.
The deeply disturbed inability to think clearly that you demonstrated by admitting to your own cowardice which you exibited by surrendering to the terrorists demands immediately without a fight and then pretending that your argument actually supported you is typical of your sort of cowardly traitor.
And it's still going on (Gov. Blagoevich is currently the subject of about 10 federal invetstigations, and Mayor Daley's patronage scandals will probably prevent him from running again).
And his *Republican* predecessor was recently sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison.
Illinois is a bad example for partisan corruption since the place is so thoroughly corrupt that the most noble and decent person in the world would probably die from the fumes the day they took office if it were even possible to get in without already being thoroughly corrupt regardless of your party.
A little flamebaitish language I see? Its not polite to bash someone on their political views.
Not flamebait, simple statement of facts.
It isn't a question of bashing people for their "views" it's bashing people for their willful support for the torture and murder of innocent people among many other crimes and acts of treason and then trying to pretend the he isn't responsible for his own actions which he undertook willingly.
The republican party was not hta bad before Reagan
No, they have gotten progressively and systematically worse as their supporters have continued to support them as they were pissing in the face of the stated platform of their party. Reagan did open the floodgates, and he is still revered by the people who voted for Bush even though the massive crimes of his administration were simply the stepping stones leading up to the current situation.
I think you are confusing neoconservatives with republicans...Neoconservatives who were once democrats believe it or not make up the current bulk of the republican party.
With doublethinking idiocy like this being treated as rational, it's no surprise we're in the situation we're currently in.
I know who these people are. You apparently know as well as I do that they are the Republican party yet you're claiming that I'm the one being confused? Your two sentences right there are nearly direct contradictions of each other.
They favor government involvement iwth aboritions, strong militiary, war hawking, and are very anti communist. Sounds very Reaganish to me though Reagan was not as extreme in the neocon movement like Cheney or the current administration by a long shot.
That's been the Republican party since WW2 at least. The threat of the "godless communists" is what directly led to the merger between the Republicans and the religious extremists with the obvious and easily predictable results of corrupt religion and oppressive government.
Maybe you should look over that list of Neocons and think about how many of them were in Reagan's administration before you pretend he wasn't neck deep in the shit. That whole Iran Contra thing? The best argument you can make for Reagan is that he was a drooling vegetable and hence not responsible for his crimes, but that's pretty damn scary in and of itself.
My advice to the grandposter is to support McCain in the next election and perhaps vote for a democrat in the current one. If your party losses this time the neocon nuts will split from the party and the more moderate old time republicans can take controll. they will be forced to do so if they appear to extreme like now to the American people.
So your advice is to support McCain who actively campaigned for the worst traitor in US history? To allow the same slime to slither back in again?!?
That's just insanity. McCain long ago gave up any claim to integrity. He'll pipe up with some meaningless gesture against torture and then go right ahead voting the party line. Were he moving forward to have Bush impeached, then he would be showing himself to be a patriot, but he is far more interested in loyalty to his party than to his country as he has proven time and time again.
The truly sad thing is that he is the best of the Republicans. Given the fact that he is the best that they have to offer, the solution is not to go with the least sleezy yet still neck deep in filth. The solution is to throw the whole lot of them out, prosecute them for their crimes, and execute most if not all of them for treason.
Anything short of that is telling them that it's business as usual and go full speed ahead with their fascist agenda.
These people clearly do not understand the basic principles of a republican take on government - they are interested in power, and give people like me a bad name.
Bullshit. You earned that bad name when you actively decided to become a Republican. They haven't recently changed. They've stood for this type of shit for my entire life, and I'm 36.
They understand the Republican take on government perfectly. It's you who is still failing to understand it. Wake up, grow some integrity, start begging us decent citizens for forgiveness for your treason and the start working to correct the hideous crimes that *you* of your own free will actively supported.
I believe in small government, and the maximization of freedoms as an individual, and increasing the amount of power the people have over the government, not the reverse.
Bullshit again.
If you stood for any of those things then you would not be a Republican. The Democrats certainly don't stand for those things either, but they do far more so than the Republicans have for decades.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Republicans actions since at least Reagan have clearly demonstreated that they believe in *bigger* government than even the Democrats.
The two parties are after the same thing, every time. They are after power. They are not here to help people. And that pisses me off. I am ashamed of my fellow republicans, because they continue to do stupid things and say stupid things.
Oh fuck you. Be ashamed of yourself. You're a Republican, therefore this shit is *your* fault. Be a man and quit blaming your "fellow Republicans". Take some of that personal responsibility you shitbags are always whining about, admit your crimes, and deal with the consequences including admitting what *your* freely chosen actions have made you. A subhuman monster who has actively supported the most savage assault on our Constitution in history, and who still supports the torture and murdrer of innocent people.
Until you can have that honesty, your meaningless lies show you to have learned nothing from your mistakes.
My message to congress: engage brain before voting.
My message to Congress:
You have acted to ensure that no American can ever feel safe again by your savage cowardly assaults on our Constitution. Let me remind you that the second amendment to that Constitution exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that *you* can never feel safe again.
Slashdot Mirror
Rove is the ultimate snapshot of what politics is all about in the USA and shows that politics in the USA has nothing to do with "left" or "right", "conservatives" versus "liberals", "democrats" versus "republicans", fundamentalists versus gays and lesbians. It's all about getting power/control and money (without working for it) to the Elite.
If it's all about power, control, and money going to the Elite, then it is absolutely entirely "Right" by definition.
"conservatives" versus "liberals" is meaningless as I said.
Democrats versus Republicans is real as well, although it's mainly just a convention to divvy up the two "teams" which are inevitably created (intentionally or otherwise is irrelevant) by the way our system of voting was designed.
The fundamentalist attack on gays also fits neatly into the left-right divide. They think they're better so they want to use the power of the state to keep the gays down.
The fact that they are getting screwed just as hard by the "Elite" as everybody else is is just a testament to how blind hatred leads to poor decision making. Both the fundie gay bashers and the "Elite" are right wing though in those specific contexts, so those classifications are still meaningful.
what you need to do is find out is - who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing. On any given day - the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. The Green Party and so on - will screw anyone, anytime to get control of the power and the money.
That is certainly true, but it's still totally inaccurate to say that there is no "left" and "right".
It's not a question of whether or not they'll screw you but there is a meaningful distinction between how they'll screw you, who they'll screw
(to a point) and most especially, what sweet nothings they whisper in your ear to get you to bend over and spread
For example, the classical lie/spin is that so-called "right" (Republican's) are all about smaller government - but everytime the Republicans take control - government grows like cancer.
... the old urban myth sprouts its ugly head again - "left" versus "right".
Oh no
There is no "left" or "right"
There's kind of a grain of truth to what you say, but it's all mixed up and muddled.
"Left" and "Right" exist as ways of describing certain sets of political beliefs. They don't map well to "Democrat" and "Republican". Likewise neither of those map in any meaningful way with "Conservative" and "Liberal".
"Liberal" as used in America doesn't even relate to what the word used to mean and still does mean in most of the world.
Liberalism was the fundamental basis for this country when it was founded. It's a belief in individual liberty as opposed to rule by kings or priests or other "elites". That's why the seperation of church and state was far and away the most important and powerful defining factor in the creation of the nation. Democracy had long history as did Republics, so there really wasn't all that much new there.
"Left" and "Right" originated as terms prior to the French revolution when the first and second estates, the Nobility and the Church, sat on the right hand side while the representatives of the people, the third estate sat on the left.
In modern terms, they most accurate way I have heard them defined is by the nature of their opposition to Liberalism.
The left supports the belief that all people are created equal (i.e. they believe in the idea of Liberalism), however they go further and believe that the power of the state should be used against individuals in order to enforce this equality. Obviously, this has led to some excesses from time to time (Da, comrade?)
The right, on the other hand rejects outright the idea that all people are created equal and believes in using the power of the state against people to maintain inequality to keep the rich rich and so forth.
That is why both the Right and the Left are in favor of big oppressive government and adamantly against real Liberalism.
In the US, Liberalism came to have a very different meaning over the years, in part due to subversion by the left and in part through the vitriolic attacks of the Right. At this point it has two distinctly different meanings in the US.
When used as a term to describe oneself, it generally means one who does believe in treating people equally regardless of color, sexual persuasion etc. Additionally, it's often used to indicate belief in various socioeconomic ideas like affirmative action, welfare, social security etc.
When used to describe another person it's typically just used as a meaningless epithet to say "they disagree with me in some way or other".
Due to these (and other) factors the term is pretty vague and for the most part useless to accurately describe anything anymore.
"Conservative" is similarly meaningless. Often people try to use it as if it meant what it sounds like i.e. they're in favor of conserving something, usually described in vague fluffy terms like "traditional American values", but given the range of positions supported by people usign it to describe themselves, it's an essentially vacuous term as well. One typical example is the Pledge of Allegiance fiasco that keeps coming up.
Nobody who cared at all about preserving traditional values and the like would want "under God" in the pledge since adding that was a radical change that flies in the face of what set this country apart from the rest of the world.
The original pledge is:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which its stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
No "God". No "United States of America" for that matter.
Anybody who wants it to say anything but that isn't a conservative, they're a radical with an agenda.
Of course, the fact that we did quite
Hiring a celebrity to endorse your product is like posting a bond. The firm makes a substantial investment up front and reaps returs over a long period of time. A firm that expects to disappear in a year won't make such an investment."
I don't think that's really as certain as you seem to. I'm definitely not claiming that the producers, marketers or salespeople are not acting rationally in order to make as many bucks as they can.
Even the fly by nights (assuming that they aren't a complete scam and actually have a product) have to make some sort of investment to get a return. Getting a big name celebrity to endorse their product would give that air of legitimacy just as it does for the "quality" company. It's just a numbers game to figure out if it's worth that investment.
Pets.com did buy a Super Bowl ad after all.
I hold to the idea that people, on average, respond rationally to incentives, and attempt to find a way explain reality with that idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "incentives" exactly in this context. 0% financing is certainly a good deal and makes a great incentive to buy a car from that dealer especially if you're already looking. I think you're talking about something different though.
You just need to look at modern advertising to see that the people putting these campaigns together don't believe that people make rational decisions since they're almost all designed to make emotional appeals in order to cut rationality out of the loop.
There is an interesting article here about a study which disagrees with you.
Quoted from the link:
Now you could make the argument that if an ad has put your brain in a panic state where it believes that if you don't have $COOL_NEW_THING then you'll be forever alone and miserable (exagerated version of what most ads attempt to accomplish, but not exagerated much for some) that then deciding to buy $COOL_NEW_THING is a rational decision, but that really isn't much of an argument since this is subverting rationality.
An argument has to be both valid and sound to be rational. "If A then B".
In this case, A is "you don't have $COOL_NEW_THING so you'll be forever alone and miserable"
B is "I should buy $COOL_NEW_THING".
Once you assume A, then B *is* a rational decision, hence the argument is valid.
The fact that A is complete nonsense makes the argument not sound and hence irrational. It's a bad argument
The major focus of advertising is to deceive you into believing that A is true contrary to all logic or reason.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
Good luck on your exam!
We have the most corrupt state government and the highest state taxes in the country.
;-)
You might win on taxes, but I live in Illinois
Our previous governor (Republican) just got sentenced to 6.5 years in prison.
Our current governor (Democrat) is under investigation for a variety of offenses.
His opponent in the upcoming election (Republican) was the treasurer for the aforementioned jailbird and so either complicit or truly and deeply incompetent not to have noticed what was going on all around her.
You think you can beat that with "raise taxes to provide services".
Hah! I say.
My point was I was retracting my original statement because the original poster has already voluntarily taken part in the United States political system so he should be protected like anyone else.
Fair enough. That was really my only gripe.
Personally, I'm somewhere in between you and he although leaning more his way as our debt spirals out of control due to some maniacs who are actively subverting the system which I did sign on for (according to your definition). I'd say since they broke the contract and are currently wiping their asses with it that it's pretty much null and void.
Anyhow, that's really neither here nor there. You did reasonably address my point of contention for which I thank you.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this whole topic.
Your call of shenanigans is denied due to extreme bogosity.
The person that started it is most likely gainfully employed.
Blagh blagh signed tax forms etc.
That wasn't the point to which I responded.
You said (essentially) that he would be unjustified in expecting police protection were he to be victimized by criminals.
I said (essentially) that regardless of his feelings about any of the above, that he has already paid for that exact protection and hence deserves it as much as you or I.
Had he said that he has refused to ever pay any taxes (or if you could show that that was the case) then you would have had a reasonable point.
So that particular argument of yours did nothing to refute any of the arguments he made.
You can only convince people to want things they did not before, perhaps on false information, but you still are convincing them to want something.
;-) that are in no way rational, then your original statement that I disagreed with is refuted.
I don't disagree with you at all. That was actually my point. When you (well marketers, not *you*. Regardless of your profession, this isn't intended as a personal attack in any way) have convinced somebody to want something through various methods developed, very scientifically by marketing (and advertising its bastard child
I think you backed up my point right there.
If I were wrong, then commercials would be boring lists of facts and figures *rationally* proving the superiority of one product over another.
The fact that you almost never (if ever) see anything of the sort proves my point.
If you still think I'm mistaken, would you mind trying to explain how?
No, the basis for marketing is
* To convince people that a product offers something they want,
* To convince people that they should want something the product offers, and
* To raise awareness of a product.
This definition of rational in no way conflicts with marketing.
It does conflict when as happens quite often, the marketers manage to convince people of these things and these things are not true.
Taste has nothing to do with it.
Marketing is quite often dedicated to convincing people that "foo is 20% better than the leading brand and will stop raping your dog like our previous product did" when *it isn't true* and a rational person would know that by using their rationality.
The science of marketing is evolving extremelky rapidly in order to convince people to buy worthless crap that they do not need.
It is true that often times especially with staples and such that it really is a toss up, and marketing can make the difference between equal choices.
It is also true that marketing uses a number of techniques designed for the specific purpose of suppressing rationality in decision making.
You should look into the science that's gone into marketing in recent decades for this specific purpose.
Taste is irrelevant to my point. It's not a question of whether people choose to buy things that I think are lame or whatever.
It's a question of people being manipulated into suppressing their rationality via marketing which is a major part of modern marketing techniques.
Economists assume that people act rationally in the presence of incentives on average, a hypothesis that no one has ever reproducibly shown false.
The entire basis for existence of of the field of marketing is the fact that that hypothesis is complete nonsense. The entire purpose of marketing is in causing people to not make rational decisions.
Where does more money go, to economics, or to marketing?
Case closed.
Well, I'd love to see you try it, liberal manly man. LOL!! What a boob you are.
Now as soon as you can point to one thing I've said that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I'm a "liberal", then you will have shown yourself not to be a complete idiot. I'm not holding my breath though.
It really must be an interesting life you lead, Darby, what with all of that love pouring out of you 24/7. I'll bet you're just a hoot to hang out with! Everybody LOVES that Darby dude!!
Actually, lots of people do. I actually do have a lot of love pouring out of me, so to speak. It's why cowards like you who actively support torturing and murdering innocent people do piss me off. It takes a lot to do that, but you scum have crossed way the fuck over the line.
I'm laughing right now because I know people like you, Darby. It's pretty sad, really, all the obsessive hate. You really do need the couch time. Really. Look into it./i.
I doubt you do know people like me. Decent moral people like me don't hang out with amoral scum who support allowing the government to ship them off to death camps all that much. It's not a particularly good idea, what with your whole "lets go torture the innocent to death" thing you have going on.
Why can't politicians see that they're selling out their country by trying to protect it with more non-sense laws that are only in big corporations interests and NOT the peoples?
They can. It's not difficult, obscure, or in any way unclear.
They know it perfectly well, but they don't care.
When will it end?
When we kill them.
That's it. There is no other way.
So while I appreciate so much seeing your nose in our business, I'll vote for the best candidate for me and my state be it Democrat or Republican... not because of what some foreigner tries to tell me about the laws and statutes within my own country.
By restricting yourself to those 2 choices you have refused yourself the ability to vote for a good candidate, let alone the best.
Sorry if you don't like that fact, but it is true.
Why would any senator ever vote for a bill that benefitted only one particular state?
Because that State's Senators made a reasonable, honest case for it.
If they can't, then it doesn't get passed which in almost all cases is a net win for everybody.
That way we wouldn't consistently have a large number of states paying nothing into the pool and taking massive amounts from the productive members of society as happens today.
I only hope that when someone either rapes you, maims you or steals from you that you don't ask for any help from governmentally appointed law enforcement since they have to contract with you either.
In point of fact, he would be perfectly justified in expecting help from the governmentally appointed law enforcement since he has already paid for it.
The fact that he paid for it at gunpoint is completely irrelevant to the fact that he did pay his protection money.
The issue of whether or not he'd be silly to expect any *worthwhile* help in excahnge for his payment is a completely different subject.
t is a testament to Western-style Democracy that the system survives - and even thrives - despite corrupt politicians.
You seem to have an interesting definition of "thrive". I'd say it's currently tearing itself apart at the seams.
Despite what most Europeans think, George Bush's powers are *not* unlimited.
I don't know any Europeans who think that, and I know quite a few, being married to one and all.
One of the most serious problems facing us right now is the fact that Bush believes that his powers should be unlimited with no oversight and Congress is largely going along with it.
Congress ultimately controls the money, and congressmen serve the whims of their constituents to a far greater degree than the President.
I'm not sure if you mean that congressmen serve their constituents more than they serve the president or that they serve their constituents more than the president serves his.
Either way, there is some truth to what you said, but they serve the whims of their party to a far greater degree than they do their country or their constituents. Hell, just look at McCain. Loses largely due to assaults on his patriotism by a coward and accusations of having a "black baby" and still licks Bush's boots. He is far and away the best that the Republicans have to offer and he has completely given up on serving his country in favor of his party.
Just ask Joe Lieberman - possibly the most honest guy in national American politics. He is now a private citizen.
Lieberman the most honest? Good lord.
That is a pretty serious insult to people like Russ Feingold who actually have integrity. So much so that he even bothered to read the patriot act and therefore voted against it.
Ah, yes, the "murder a republican" moonbat rears his waterhead once again. You need some serious couch time, dude.
Ahhh, the ship innocent people off to camps to be tortured and murdered but heaven forbid you be held to account for your actions which are the provocation for the sig you no personal responsibility having typical cowardly Republican douchebag.
Sorry, no couch time needed. You've earned a bullet through the head by your support of treason, torture and murder.
It's a simple matter of self defense. You and yours started actually torturing and murdering innocent people because you're too cowardly to deal with a threat head on.
Great. More 20/20 hindsight. So, is anyone predicting any upcoming terrorist attacks right now?
Sure, there's good odds for one on Iran real soon now.
I'm a libertarian AC supporting most of the present administrations policies albeit not in every detail nor implementation.
How can you consider yourself libertarian and support the most extreme authoritarian policies we've seen in a over a century, if ever?
That's truly amazing to me.
Detail or implementation are irrelevant compared to the policies themselves which are entirely anti-libertarian (or Liberal in the classical sense) in every aspect.
Interesting, Bill Clinton said last Sunday night or whenever it was that He "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy." I guess that turned out to be a lie if Rice was being pressured to set one herself.
Not at all. They refused to go along with Clinton's strategy and basically called off the dogs.
Hell, Bush's ambassador to Yemen refused entry to the head of the joint CIA FBI task force that was on the job and getting close after the Cole bombing.
No, it's not to simply scare us, it's to scare us into doing what they want, you know, make policy changes. Now, if you want to give them whatever they want at the expense of our national interest, then I have a name for you; it starts with a "c" and rhymes with "howard"...
Yes, scare us into giving up everything that used to make us a shining beacon of freedom. Give up the liberty that used to define this country.
I agree completely that you and the rest of the idiots who still buy into your dear leader's lies are cowards pissing yellow down your legs.
The deeply disturbed inability to think clearly that you demonstrated by admitting to your own cowardice which you exibited by surrendering to the terrorists demands immediately without a fight and then pretending that your argument actually supported you is typical of your sort of cowardly traitor.
Do you think that as long as you don't know there is a homocidal maniac waiting in your closet that you're somehow more safe?
No, a lot of people are starting to wake up to what you are and what you are doing.
And it's still going on (Gov. Blagoevich is currently the subject of about 10 federal invetstigations, and Mayor Daley's patronage scandals will probably prevent him from running again).
And his *Republican* predecessor was recently sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison.
Illinois is a bad example for partisan corruption since the place is so thoroughly corrupt that the most noble and decent person in the world would probably die from the fumes the day they took office if it were even possible to get in without already being thoroughly corrupt regardless of your party.
A little flamebaitish language I see? Its not polite to bash someone on their political views.
Not flamebait, simple statement of facts.
It isn't a question of bashing people for their "views" it's bashing people for their willful support for the torture and murder of innocent people among many other crimes and acts of treason and then trying to pretend the he isn't responsible for his own actions which he undertook willingly.
The republican party was not hta bad before Reagan
No, they have gotten progressively and systematically worse as their supporters have continued to support them as they were pissing in the face of the stated platform of their party.
Reagan did open the floodgates, and he is still revered by the people who voted for Bush even though the massive crimes of his administration were simply the stepping stones leading up to the current situation.
I think you are confusing neoconservatives with republicans...Neoconservatives who were once democrats believe it or not make up the current bulk of the republican party.
With doublethinking idiocy like this being treated as rational, it's no surprise we're in the situation we're currently in.
I know who these people are. You apparently know as well as I do that they are the Republican party yet you're claiming that I'm the one being confused? Your two sentences right there are nearly direct contradictions of each other.
They favor government involvement iwth aboritions, strong militiary, war hawking, and are very anti communist. Sounds very Reaganish to me though Reagan was not as extreme in the neocon movement like Cheney or the current administration by a long shot.
That's been the Republican party since WW2 at least. The threat of the "godless communists" is what directly led to the merger between the Republicans and the religious extremists with the obvious and easily predictable results of corrupt religion and oppressive government.
Maybe you should look over that list of Neocons and think about how many of them were in Reagan's administration before you pretend he wasn't neck deep in the shit.
That whole Iran Contra thing?
The best argument you can make for Reagan is that he was a drooling vegetable and hence not responsible for his crimes, but that's pretty damn scary in and of itself.
My advice to the grandposter is to support McCain in the next election and perhaps vote for a democrat in the current one. If your party losses this time the neocon nuts will split from the party and the more moderate old time republicans can take controll. they will be forced to do so if they appear to extreme like now to the American people.
So your advice is to support McCain who actively campaigned for the worst traitor in US history? To allow the same slime to slither back in again?!?
That's just insanity.
McCain long ago gave up any claim to integrity.
He'll pipe up with some meaningless gesture against torture and then go right ahead voting the party line.
Were he moving forward to have Bush impeached, then he would be showing himself to be a patriot, but he is far more interested in loyalty to his party than to his country as he has proven time and time again.
The truly sad thing is that he is the best of the Republicans. Given the fact that he is the best that they have to offer, the solution is not to go with the least sleezy yet still neck deep in filth. The solution is to throw the whole lot of them out, prosecute them for their crimes, and execute most if not all of them for treason.
Anything short of that is telling them that it's business as usual and go full speed ahead with their fascist agenda.
These people clearly do not understand the basic principles of a republican take on government - they are interested in power, and give people like me a bad name.
Bullshit.
You earned that bad name when you actively decided to become a Republican. They haven't recently changed. They've stood for this type of shit for my entire life, and I'm 36.
They understand the Republican take on government perfectly.
It's you who is still failing to understand it.
Wake up, grow some integrity, start begging us decent citizens for forgiveness for your treason and the start working to correct the hideous crimes that *you* of your own free will actively supported.
I believe in small government, and the maximization of freedoms as an individual, and increasing the amount of power the people have over the government, not the reverse.
Bullshit again.
If you stood for any of those things then you would not be a Republican.
The Democrats certainly don't stand for those things either, but they do far more so than the Republicans have for decades.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Republicans actions since at least Reagan have clearly demonstreated that they believe in *bigger* government than even the Democrats.
The two parties are after the same thing, every time. They are after power. They are not here to help people. And that pisses me off. I am ashamed of my fellow republicans, because they continue to do stupid things and say stupid things.
Oh fuck you. Be ashamed of yourself. You're a Republican, therefore this shit is *your* fault. Be a man and quit blaming your "fellow Republicans". Take some of that personal responsibility you shitbags are always whining about, admit your crimes, and deal with the consequences including admitting what *your* freely chosen actions have made you. A subhuman monster who has actively supported the most savage assault on our Constitution in history, and who still supports the torture and murdrer of innocent people.
Until you can have that honesty, your meaningless lies show you to have learned nothing from your mistakes.
My message to congress: engage brain before voting.
My message to Congress:
You have acted to ensure that no American can ever feel safe again by your savage cowardly assaults on our Constitution.
Let me remind you that the second amendment to that Constitution exists for the sole purpose of ensuring that *you* can never feel safe again.