Liberals vs. Conservatives-- general questions
That Guy
neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this but
it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
My questions:
1. Is America unique in this respect?
2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
political "camps"?
Sir Frederick
The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
"grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrases of the week :
"The Times isn't afraid we'll do badly in Baghdad;
it's afraid we'll do well."--Ann Coulter, Mar 27,2003
"One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is
their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater
its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot
tolerate those who do not accept it."--Gustave Le Bon
:-))))Snort!) AHOWR AHOWR!
*************************
Bill Snyder
"That Guy" <webg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkKia.194$Sg7....@news7.onvoy.net...
> The US seems unique in that the political opinions of the populace are so
> neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
but
> it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1. Is America unique in this respect?
Since this is false in application to "America", your question is empty. I
am neither (and I think that there are many like me); and that does not mean
that I am half way between. I just think that both sub-groups are part of a
way of thinking which is primarily directed toward maintaining the
fundamental CORRUPTION of the political process which is central to
"establishment" politics in the US today. Anyone who identifies itself with
either group is a stupid ass idiot.
> 2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
> aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> political "camps"?
>
See above; your premise is false. "Conservatives" and "liberals" are
equally irrelevant to anything that matters in human life. AND, what are
the "other political camps"? My reaction: if it is a "political camp", then
any exercise of intelligence calls upon you to avoid it. Thinking within a
polictical camp is thinking "inside" the lines that your political leap of
faith assigns you to. May you GROW UP!
Bill Snyder
Bill Snyder
Russ Rose
> neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
but
> it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1. Is America unique in this respect?
No, but it may appear more extreme because of the almost non-existent press
coverage of the lesser political parties. Many believe this is the cause,
but I don't think it is.
> 2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
> aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> political "camps"?
>
>
It comes from the strong American desire to win.
Conservatives that voted for Ross Perot realize they not only threw away
their vote, but actually helped the other team win.
Likewise the liberals who voted for Ralph Nader realized that they actually
helped GW steal the election.
It is these kind of educational experiences that make people lean away from
their preferred candidate of choice to vote for the guy they think has a
chance to beat the one they do not want to see elected.
In other words they will tend to invest their energy in the team that has a
chance of winning.
Russ Rose
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
[clip]
>
> The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
So much truth, so few words. How do you do it? Let me guess...maturity.
Kim
> neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this but
> it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
I think what you're seeing is what we, at least in Australia, call the
"two party prefered" system at work.
I know what you're saying. I think the reason is that there are only
two groups at the "top". Two parties to represent the people. So the
people have a tendancy to choose a group.
There are plenty who don't fall straight into a group though. I've
been known to agree with both sides at times.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1. Is America unique in this respect?
No. Australia is very similar. But the we are similar to the U.S. I'd
say in more respects that pretty much anyone else.
I beleive the UK is similar also.
There are countries in Europe though, I beleive Italy is one, and
maybe Holland... among others... where they have 5 or more parties in
Parliament... and two or three will combine to form a government and
the rest are in opposition. A lot more views get expressed, and it
makes it harder to get things done, but when things are done they're
probably better thought through and better match what the people want.
> 2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
> aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> political "camps"?
I think it's hidden by the system in place. People see there's no
point arguing a point if none of the parties are going for that, so
they choose the one party that suits them best and run with that. Over
two decades they forget they had other ideas... then pass this vision
on to their kids.
It is, IMO, not a perfect system, but neither is having more parties.
Cheers,
Kim.
Grahamster Webber
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GIMia.47669$OV.154535@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> [clip]
> >
> > The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
>
> So much truth, so few words. How do you do it? Let me guess...maturity.
Why isn't it the other way round? Why aren't conservatives children and
liberals 'grown up'?
Russ Rose
"Grahamster Webber" <graham...@tri.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b6gr5f$kif$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GIMia.47669$OV.154535@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > [clip]
> > >
> > > The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> > > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
> >
> > So much truth, so few words. How do you do it? Let me guess...maturity.
>
> Why isn't it the other way round? Why aren't conservatives children and
> liberals 'grown up'?
You will understand when you grow up...
It is the reality that seeps into all these wonderfully idealistic theories
that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural, nothing to be
ashamed of.
Realistic parenting, not the kind purchased through a child care agency, is
the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
There is also the fear factor which is tempered over time by reason.
Roger
assume they are: liberal and conservative. It's divided into the simpletons
who think everyone's divided into liberal and conservative and the thinking
people who know that nothing is that simple, especially a person's world
view.
"That Guy" <webg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dkKia.194$Sg7....@news7.onvoy.net...
Grahamster Webber
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oaUia.619$MC5...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> American political opinion isn't divided into the two groups most people
> assume they are: liberal and conservative. It's divided into the
simpletons
> who think everyone's divided into liberal and conservative and the
thinking
> people who know that nothing is that simple, especially a person's world
> view.
awesome post
Paul Sinnett
> and liberals 'grown up'?
Why is being "grown up" considered better? Many religions and
philosophies oppose that idea. For example, from Christianity:
"At that time the followers came to Jesus and asked, 'Who is
greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' Jesus called a little child to
him and stood the child before his followers. Then he said, 'I tell
you the truth, you must change and become like little children.
Otherwise, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. The greatest
person in the kingdom of heaven is the one who makes himself humble
like this child.'"
AUMsi...@webtv.net
about it alot-but I dont vote because I presume that my choice won't
win(I typically choose somebody from some "other" political party). I
suppose I dont have the right to complain,then,when somebody whom I dont
like wins the election-eh? What this country needs is AT LEAST two other
major parties(Libertarian and Green party?)- so that a more complete
choice is offered to the public-so that a truer sense of democracy
becomes realised.
Russ Rose
"Paul Sinnett" <paul.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3E8C1E04...@btinternet.com...
It's hard to be humble when you are always right...
Humbleness is a very valuable trait to carry into, or rediscover in,
adulthood. Curiosity, playfulness, and open mindedness are others. (See
Logical Song by Supertramp)
There are other childish traits that are not nearly as valuable in adulthood
such as self-centeredness, abandonment fears, narcissism, intolerance,
uncontrolled emotions like rage, desire for instant gratification, and the
desire to control their environment.
Russ Rose
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oaUia.619$MC5...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > American political opinion isn't divided into the two groups most people
> > assume they are: liberal and conservative. It's divided into the
> simpletons
> > who think everyone's divided into liberal and conservative and the
> thinking
> > people who know that nothing is that simple, especially a person's world
> > view.
>
> awesome post
I agree, well said.
However the poster was wondering why there are only two major groups,
defined by voting patterns, not the underlying world views which there are
billions of.
Grahamster Webber
Good point, although I wasn't suggesting which was better, merely asking for
a justification for Russ' point of view
Grahamster Webber
>
> "Grahamster Webber" <graham...@tri.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b6gr5f$kif$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GIMia.47669$OV.154535@rwcrnsc54...
> > >
> > > "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > > [clip]
> > > >
> > > > The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> > > > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > > > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
> > >
> > > So much truth, so few words. How do you do it? Let me
guess...maturity.
> >
> > Why isn't it the other way round? Why aren't conservatives children and
> > liberals 'grown up'?
>
> You will understand when you grow up...
Perhaps if you educated me I could grop up faster. It's an interesting idea
you put forward, but if there's nothing more to it than this kind of vacuous
rubbish then I'll have to dismiss it along with the rest of your posturing.
> It is the reality that seeps into all these wonderfully idealistic
theories
> that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural, nothing to
be
> ashamed of.
Or maybe Liberals have grown up and learnt to trust other people. Rather
than being selfish and child-like and trying to grab everything for
themselves?
> Realistic parenting, not the kind purchased through a child care agency,
is
> the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
> Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
hmmm, so because children tend to behave conservatively, this proves that
liberals are child-like and haven't grown up. Interesting logic there
Russ...
> There is also the fear factor which is tempered over time by reason.
Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
Grahamster Webber
So... Conservatism then...
Paul Sinnett
>> adulthood such as self-centeredness, abandonment fears, narcissism,
>> intolerance, uncontrolled emotions like rage, desire for instant
>> gratification, and the desire to control their environment.
>
> So... Conservatism then...
These traits do seem to describe quite the justifications for the
current action in Iraq that have been proposed by President Bush and his
staff.
That Guy
"Bill Snyder" <wsn...@direcpc.com> wrote in message
news:b6fv...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Try reading the message again, fool. Somehow you completely missed the
point, simple as it is, due to the fact that your focus is apparently
exclusively on your own view of the world.
That Guy
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> That Guy wrote:
> >
> > The US seems unique in that the political opinions of the populace are
so
> > neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
but
> > it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
> >
> > My questions:
> >
> > 1. Is America unique in this respect?
> > 2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
> > aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> > political "camps"?
>
> The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
Since you can't seem to get your focus out of your own delusional belief
system, you also missed the point of the question. Another PLONK.
That Guy
themselves either liberal or conservative.
I am aware that not everyone is divided into liberal and conservative, and
didn't suggest they were. Why don't you wake up?
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oaUia.619$MC5...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
That Guy
>
> "Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:oaUia.619$MC5...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > American political opinion isn't divided into the two groups most people
> > assume they are: liberal and conservative. It's divided into the
> simpletons
> > who think everyone's divided into liberal and conservative and the
> thinking
> > people who know that nothing is that simple, especially a person's world
> > view.
>
> awesome post
For an ignorant troll, it was pretty good!
That Guy
"Kim" <hidden...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e724e645.03040...@posting.google.com...
Kim,
Thank you. It is refreshing to receive a response from someone who is aware
enough to understand my questions and respond intelligently.
Bill Snyder
your question. I think I got the point, but deny that any intelligent
answer is impossible because the two-camp hypothesis in characterizing
American opinions is false. It is only among mediots that that the two-camp
hypothesis has a shread of significance. And I believe that the various
media fail steadfastly to reflect what most Americans believe (although they
do their best to both guide and falsify it).
Bill Snyder
Keynes
wrote:
The US system is arranged so that only one of two parties can win.
Neither party can completely satisfy anyone. So it behooves one
who wants to make a difference to be active in one party or the
other and lobby-agitate for what he wants to happen.
Presently both parties are serving big money primarily and their
supposed voter-constituents if it ever gets convenient.
Hopefully this trend can be reversed. If not, the game is up,
and we wil live forever in an aristocratic oligarchy, a tyranny
to the majority.
That Guy
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjcp8vgmkqgj22pkp...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
> >
>
> The US system is arranged so that only one of two parties can win.
> Neither party can completely satisfy anyone. So it behooves one
> who wants to make a difference to be active in one party or the
> other and lobby-agitate for what he wants to happen.
>
> Presently both parties are serving big money primarily and their
> supposed voter-constituents if it ever gets convenient.
> Hopefully this trend can be reversed. If not, the game is up,
> and we wil live forever in an aristocratic oligarchy, a tyranny
> to the majority.
Agreed. I think it is partly the result of black-and-white thinking.
Bill Snyder
defeatist. While the two parties are not quite Tweedledum/Tweedledee, they
are in central ways extremely similar, perhaps most obviously in that they
whore themselves out (in their Senatorial and Representative incarnations)
to the same major business (insurance, media, energy, medical, etc., etc.)
contributers. Perhaps I have greater faith, in the long term, in the
American people than either of you do: I think that if an alternative path
and view were consistently put forth, both rhetorically and in candidacies,
especially if it begins on the local level and builds from there, that,
after who knows how many years, the people would electorally repudiate both
of the mutually supporting groups that dominate the current political scene.
Back to your original post: I find that if I talk specific issues with
various acquaintances of mine (we all have to go to the post office at least
once a day - no home delivery) that their ideas rarely fit well with
whichever liberal/conservative bias they identify themselves. Of course, if
asked the stupid question: "Are you liberal or conservative?", then they may
very well choose one or the other, or sit in the middle. But what is needed
is that they see that the question, itself, makes manifest the
straightjacket which makes impossible any kind of politics of liberation.
YOU GOT TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, OR, YUCK, A FENCE SITTER.
Bill Snyder
Bill Snyder
Russ Rose
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M7Uia.351725$sf5.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Grahamster Webber" <graham...@tri.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b6gr5f$kif$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > >
> > > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:GIMia.47669$OV.154535@rwcrnsc54...
> > > >
> > > > "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > > > [clip]
> > > > >
> > > > > The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> > > > > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > > > > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
> > > >
> > > > So much truth, so few words. How do you do it? Let me
> guess...maturity.
> > >
> > > Why isn't it the other way round? Why aren't conservatives children
and
> > > liberals 'grown up'?
> >
> > You will understand when you grow up...
>
> Perhaps if you educated me I could grop up faster.
When the student is ready, the master will appear. I pray you do not have
the same master as did I.
> It's an interesting idea
> you put forward, but if there's nothing more to it than this kind of
vacuous
> rubbish then I'll have to dismiss it along with the rest of your
posturing.
Too bad you are still taking shortcuts...
>
> > It is the reality that seeps into all these wonderfully idealistic
> theories
> > that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural, nothing to
> be
> > ashamed of.
>
> Or maybe Liberals have grown up and learnt to trust other people. Rather
> than being selfish and child-like and trying to grab everything for
> themselves?
If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire to
control so much of what people do?
>
> > Realistic parenting, not the kind purchased through a child care agency,
> is
> > the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
> > Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
>
> hmmm, so because children tend to behave conservatively, this proves that
> liberals are child-like and haven't grown up. Interesting logic there
> Russ...
I did not say that children are conservative. I said they act in a way that
disproves the "liberal" parenting methods' validity. When you have children
you will understand... hopefully while they are young enough to make a
difference.
>
> > There is also the fear factor which is tempered over time by reason.
>
> Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
Childish.
Russ Rose
From your point of view.
I disagree.
Russ Rose
Yes?
Russ Rose
Intolerance of other's belief systems. Fascinating...
Keynes
wrote:
Say, Russ, what ever happpened to those two big liberal whackos?
I mean that guy who thought the military could operate just fine if
it had gays in it, and that other tree hugging doofus who made up
the EPA and OSHA? You know. That second guy put us under
communist wage and price controls. (That's Goldwater and Nixon, BTW.)
What about those anti-supply-siders who tried to kill the Reagan
economic boom? (GHW Bush, and Bob Dole IIRC.)
Pinkos and commies all. Freaking liberal trash.
Russ Rose
The first one is feeding the worms. The second is being made a fool of by
his far more competent "idiot" offspring.
Roger
the ideas generally associated with liberal or conservative. They may be in
favor of low taxes, pro-choice, pro death penalty, etc. They may choose the
label that matches most of their views or the most important issues to them,
but very few people pick all issues from one or the other.
"That Guy" <webg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qXYia.210$Sg7....@news7.onvoy.net...
Grahamster Webber
Oh come on, Russ, you should at least explain what you mean. You might be
right - I'd be interested to hear your theory.
> >
> > > It is the reality that seeps into all these wonderfully idealistic
> > theories
> > > that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural, nothing
to
> > be
> > > ashamed of.
> >
> > Or maybe Liberals have grown up and learnt to trust other people. Rather
> > than being selfish and child-like and trying to grab everything for
> > themselves?
>
> If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire to
> control so much of what people do?
Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running the
country. With a small government it's the corporations that control
everything and they're unnacountable.
> >
> > > Realistic parenting, not the kind purchased through a child care
agency,
> > is
> > > the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
> > > Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
> >
> > hmmm, so because children tend to behave conservatively, this proves
that
> > liberals are child-like and haven't grown up. Interesting logic there
> > Russ...
>
> I did not say that children are conservative. I said they act in a way
that
> disproves the "liberal" parenting methods' validity. When you have
children
> you will understand... hopefully while they are young enough to make a
> difference.
Liberal parenting methods were far more effective than the conservative ones
for me... Although I must say I find it absurd that your black and white few
of the world extends so far!
> >
> > > There is also the fear factor which is tempered over time by reason.
> >
> > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
>
> Childish.
And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
Grahamster Webber
Well I liked it ;-)
Myriad of Pain
Yeah, the two-camp hypothesis is certainly false, alright. But help me --
I'm trying to remember when the last time was that a non-Democrat or
non-Republican won an election in the US, particularly a presidential
election. Happen to remember that right off?
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> That Guy wrote:
> >
so
> > neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
but
> > it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
> >
> > My questions:
> >
> > 1. Is America unique in this respect?
> > aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> > political "camps"?
>
> Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
Grown up? Is that what you call it when you turn into a crazy fuck and spew
ridiculous garbage that absolutely no one even begins to give a serious
thought to all over the newsgroups for a really long time? If so, then --
hell -- you're so grown up, you must have died a few times by now!
Seriously, though, people like you are just such an odd phenomenon. They
say even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. Well, I don't
know what your deal is, but you're not finding too many nuts. Well, unless
you're thinking with them once you do, because, between you and me, the
cuckoo flew your nest a *LONG* time ago!
MoP
> --
> Best,
> Frederick Martin McNeill
> Poway, California, United States of America
> mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
> http://www.fuzzysys.com
> *************************
> Phrases of the week :
> "The Times isn't afraid we'll do badly in Baghdad;
> it's afraid we'll do well."--Ann Coulter, Mar 27,2003
> "One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is
> their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater
> its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot
> tolerate those who do not accept it."--Gustave Le Bon
> :-))))Snort!) AHOWR AHOWR!
> *************************
Myriad of Pain
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M7Uia.351725$sf5.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:GIMia.47669$OV.154535@rwcrnsc54...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The independent variable is maturity not cultural diversity.
> > > > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > > > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
> > >
guess...maturity.
> >
> > Why isn't it the other way round? Why aren't conservatives children and
> > liberals 'grown up'?
>
> You will understand when you grow up...
>
theories
> that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural, nothing to
be
> ashamed of.
>
is
> the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
> Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
>
>
>
You have children?! Now that's a scary thought... I guess we can only hope
they either rebel strongly against you or get into drugs...
MoP
Myriad of Pain
Ah ha ha ha ha ha!!! You should immediately change your posting handle or
blow your brains out! I cannot believe a so-called intellectual would buy
into such rubbish as the bullshit line that conservatives advocate small
government!...lol!
You're beyond hope, I'm telling you. You probably should -- I don't know --
crack open a book or two before you go shooting your fool mouth off. I
mean, seriously, you've pretty much destroyed my faith in humanity...
MoP
Myriad of Pain
Now, now -- Don't go confusing Russ with the facts! He's a real stupid
son-of-a-bitch, and I get the impression he wants to stay that way!
MoP
Myriad of Pain
Oh come on! Surely *EVEN YOU* realize that Sir Frederick's "belief system"
is the sort that requires thorazine! The guy's a fucking nutter; no shit...
Do a http://groups.google.com search on the guy. You're probably smarter
than him by far -- honestly. I mean you're pretty stupid, but you don't
really seem crazy. Although, in light of your here-quoted post, I worry
that Freddy-boy is having a Charles Manson like effect on you.
MoP
Myriad of Pain
> > The US seems unique in that the political opinions of the populace are
so
> > neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
> but
> > it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
> >
> > My questions:
> >
> > 1. Is America unique in this respect?
>
press
> coverage of the lesser political parties. Many believe this is the cause,
> but I don't think it is.
>
> > 2. Why, in a country with probably the most diverse population on earth,
> > aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> > political "camps"?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Conservatives that voted for Ross Perot realize they not only threw away
> their vote, but actually helped the other team win.
>
> Likewise the liberals who voted for Ralph Nader realized that they
actually
> helped GW steal the election.
>
> It is these kind of educational experiences that make people lean away
from
> their preferred candidate of choice to vote for the guy they think has a
> chance to beat the one they do not want to see elected.
>
> In other words they will tend to invest their energy in the team that has
a
> chance of winning.
>
>
I'd like to compliment you. Some of this was actually kinda smart sounding!
If you're right, though, doesn't it make you wonder a bit if maybe they
stage those Perot things just to have that effect on people? I mean,
sure -- bit of a conspiracy theory, I know, but kinda interesting, anyway...
MoP
Russ Rose
I was responding to the preceding sentence where you declare that
considering my ideas would be the waste of time. So you just take the
shortcut and dismiss them without consideration.
>
> > >
> > > > It is the reality that seeps into all these wonderfully idealistic
> > > theories
> > > > that young liberal minds develop and cling to. It is natural,
nothing
> to
> > > be
> > > > ashamed of.
> > >
> > > Or maybe Liberals have grown up and learnt to trust other people.
Rather
> > > than being selfish and child-like and trying to grab everything for
> > > themselves?
> >
> > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire to
> > control so much of what people do?
>
> Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running the
> country.
Which is why the liberals rely on the least educated and informed as their
voting base.
>With a small government it's the corporations that control
> everything and they're unaccountable.
It is not "people" who run the corporations? Maybe you think they are
giraffes? People do not "vote" for corporations with their product choices?
Business owners provide the valuable services, products and jobs on which
the world runs. Try and have a little respect for what they do.
>
> > >
> > > > Realistic parenting, not the kind purchased through a child care
> agency,
> > > is
> > > > the greatest motivator toward a more conservative view of the world.
> > > > Children are great at disproving liberal theories of human behavior.
> > >
> > > hmmm, so because children tend to behave conservatively, this proves
> that
> > > liberals are child-like and haven't grown up. Interesting logic there
> > > Russ...
> >
> > I did not say that children are conservative. I said they act in a way
> that
> > disproves the "liberal" parenting methods' validity. When you have
> children
> > you will understand... hopefully while they are young enough to make a
> > difference.
>
> Liberal parenting methods were far more effective than the conservative
ones
> for me... Although I must say I find it absurd that your black and white
few
> of the world extends so far!
So you had both? Maybe that is why you are so confused. Your parents should
have taught you not to lie.
>
> > >
> > > > There is also the fear factor which is tempered over time by reason.
> > >
> > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> >
> > Childish.
>
> And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
>
The fact that it is an emotion puts it firmly in the liberal realm of
"ideas".
What exactly are conservatives afraid of?
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
news:b6jejc$tsq$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
[clip]
>
>
> You have children?! Now that's a scary thought... I guess we can only
hope
> they either rebel strongly against you or get into drugs...
Has that been your solution to life?
>
> MoP
>
>
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
I don't need to do a search. I have been reading his insane stories for a
long time now.
I welcome any and all belief systems to be discussed in a reasonable forum
such as this.
Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think about it...
>
> MoP
>
>
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
I thank God every day for that fascist Pat Buchanan taking over and
destroying Perot's Reform party, giving GW just enough margin to steal the
election. It could not have been planned any better, and I often wonder if
it was. Then I hear Pat talk and realize he was serious...
>
> MoP
>
>
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
And you have reaffirmed mine. :-)
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
That's me...
>
> MoP
>
>
Grahamster Webber
> >
> > Oh come on, Russ, you should at least explain what you mean. You might
be
> > right - I'd be interested to hear your theory.
>
> I was responding to the preceding sentence where you declare that
> considering my ideas would be the waste of time. So you just take the
> shortcut and dismiss them without consideration.
Don't get all sensitive - come on, out with your theory!
> > > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire
to
> > > control so much of what people do?
> >
> > Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running the
> > country.
>
> Which is why the liberals rely on the least educated and informed as their
> voting base.
>
> >With a small government it's the corporations that control
> > everything and they're unaccountable.
>
> It is not "people" who run the corporations? Maybe you think they are
> giraffes?
It's not the fact that they're 'people' I object to, but that they're
unnacountable.
> People do not "vote" for corporations with their product choices?
Often we don't have choice though, if I want a coffee at an airport then I
have to have a starbucks. Or if I want a cola flavoured drink I have to have
a coke (no supermarkets stock Rola Cola in the UK any more :-( ). Capitalism
doesn't necessarily result in more choice...
> Business owners provide the valuable services, products and jobs on which
> the world runs. Try and have a little respect for what they do.
They do it to make money, not to make people happy. If they could sack all
their workers and make even more money they would!
> > Liberal parenting methods were far more effective than the conservative
> ones
> > for me... Although I must say I find it absurd that your black and white
> few
> > of the world extends so far!
>
> So you had both? Maybe that is why you are so confused. Your parents
should
> have taught you not to lie.
Jesus - it has to be black and white for you! Sometimes they were
conservative, but as they got older they were more liberal!
> > > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> > >
> > > Childish.
> >
> > And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
>
> The fact that it is an emotion puts it firmly in the liberal realm of
> "ideas".
>
> What exactly are conservatives afraid of?
Sadam Hussein? Arabs? Asylum seekers and Immigrants? Crime? Downfall of
standards? The liberal - homosexual elite?
That Guy
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
This does make good sense, but it's not really what I meant to ask. I think
the two key elements are that people prefer simplicity over complexity and
certainty over uncertainty. Combine that with the human tendency of
choosing what to believe for emotional reasons but thinking they arrived at
those beliefs through reason, and you have a great set-up for a lot of
people to get suckered into dualistic thinking.
That Guy
>
> >
> > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire to
> > control so much of what people do?
>
> Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running the
> country. With a small government it's the corporations that control
> everything and they're unnacountable.
We have a huge government and it is very heavily influenced by corporations,
as is the media.
The liberal leaning is to have more controls over businesses and money,
while allowing people to enjoy personal freedoms (excluding the freedom from
high taxes, though.)
The conservative leaning is to leave businesses alone and restrict personal
freedom. A good example of this is the drug war, but there are other
examples-- conservatives approve of conformity and tend to make laws against
practicing "deviant" lifestyles.
Liberalism tends to increase crimes of theft, while conservatism tends to
increase crimes of rebellion. However, either approach, if used with
balance and intelligence, can have a fair amount of success. The problem
with both of them is that there is a difference in theory and practice.
Theories can be refined to perfection, but the people attempting to apply
the theories are imperfect.
If the US was more of a democracy, people would have more say in what goes
on. Big issues, like attacking Iraq or next year's budget, would be open to
public voting directly on the issue. Smaller issues could be handled by the
elected officials.
Remember the big stink the US rebels made over "taxation without
representation"? That was appropriate for the time. Now, however, I say
representation is more a form of tyranny than anything else. I should be
the one to decide where my taxes go; no vote counts more than the vote of
the dollar! Say I'm taxed a total of $10,000 this year. I should be able
to say I want X percent to go to the military, Y percent to highways, Z
percent to something else, etc. Until that happens, I do not consider
myself to be free. I'm not saying that America isn't closer to freedom than
most other countries, I'm just saying we're not nearly as close as we could
be.
I have stated my beliefs before and the biggest objections to them were that
the average "joe" is too stupid/ignorant/uninformed to make such decisions.
The answer to that objection seems obvious.
That Guy
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MT3ja.6446$ug3....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> >
> > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire to
> > control so much of what people do?
> >
>
>
>
> Ah ha ha ha ha ha!!! You should immediately change your posting handle or
> blow your brains out! I cannot believe a so-called intellectual would buy
> into such rubbish as the bullshit line that conservatives advocate small
> government!...lol!
Um, that was a little over the top, and I *don't* see where he is buying the
bullshit that conservatives are for smaller government, but I agree that
anyone who thinks the conservative politicians are for smaller government is
hopelessly deluded.
> You're beyond hope, I'm telling you. You probably should -- I don't
know --
> crack open a book or two before you go shooting your fool mouth off. I
> mean, seriously, you've pretty much destroyed my faith in humanity...
You don't have to go so far overboard to make a point.
> MoP
> > >
> > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> >
> > Childish.
No emotion is "childish" or "adult." They're just emotions.
Myriad of Pain
More the latter than the former, perhaps, but the truth is probably neither.
I don't see any problems requiring solution.
MoP
> >
> > MoP
> >
> >
>
>
Myriad of Pain
I don't recall claiming to be liberal. In the sense that you mean the term,
I am most certainly not liberal, at least if I've understood you correctly.
If you've been watching the nutbar's posts, then you'd know that he, too, is
not up for discussing belief systems. He's pretty much confined to his
world of delusion. His ideas are not even coherent. In fact, I bet if he
didn't use all the 'sciency' words that many here are not familiar with, and
he just said what he's saying in a straightforward sort of way, he would be
on everyone's killfile -- except for those like me who find his posts to be
great for making points to fellow intellectuals about how stupid and crazy
some people are.
See, the fact is that I've seen Freddy torn to shreds by pretty much
everyone who has made the effort. His response is always to whine and
killfile the person. The *ONLY* even semi-worthwhile posts that dumb
son-of-a-bitch makes are ones where he copies and pastes someone else's
article from the web.
MoP
P.S. - Glad you've been taking my posts in good humor...=)
>
> >
> > MoP
> >
> >
>
>
Myriad of Pain
Yeah, Mr. Buchanan is one scary mofo. I've read a few of his speeches
recently online. It's just ... weird ... very, very weird...
MoP
> >
> > MoP
> >
> >
>
>
Bill Lewis Clark
> Conservatives that voted for Ross Perot realize they not only threw away
> their vote, but actually helped the other team win.
> Likewise the liberals who voted for Ralph Nader realized that they actually
> helped GW steal the election.
This is called the "Spoiler Effect" and is unique to the system of
voting used in the United States ("Plurality Voting" or
"First-Past-the-Post Voting.")
Maurice Duverger was the first to make a detailed study of the
relationship between voting systems and party structures, and the fact
that First-Past-the-Post voting systems lead to a Two-Party system is
known as "Duverger's Law."
Web reference: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law
A few other countries use the same system as the US, but most other
modern democracies use a better system called "Preference Voting" or
"Instant Runoff Voting," which eliminates the flaws of the American
system. In defense of the founding fathers of the US, Preference
Voting was not invented until several years after the founding of the
country, and was basically impractical (due to the complexity involved
in vote tallying) until more modern technology became available.
There's no excuse not to switch now, however.
You can learn all about different voting systems at:
http://www.fairvote.org/
-Bill Lewis Clark
Russ Rose
> > > > Too bad you are still taking shortcuts...
> > >
> > > Oh come on, Russ, you should at least explain what you mean. You might
> be
> > > right - I'd be interested to hear your theory.
> >
> > I was responding to the preceding sentence where you declare that
> > considering my ideas would be the waste of time. So you just take the
> > shortcut and dismiss them without consideration.
>
> Don't get all sensitive - come on, out with your theory!
What theory are you talking about? You asked me to explain the preceding
sentence regarding shortcuts. There was no theory behind it. In fact I
thought it self-explanatory...
>
> > > > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire
> to
> > > > control so much of what people do?
> > >
> > > Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running the
> > > country.
> >
> > Which is why the liberals rely on the least educated and informed as
their
> > voting base.
> >
> > >With a small government it's the corporations that control
> > > everything and they're unaccountable.
> >
> > It is not "people" who run the corporations? Maybe you think they are
> > giraffes?
>
> It's not the fact that they're 'people' I object to, but that they're
> unnacountable.
They are accountable to their customers, shareholders, and the laws of the
land.
Politicians are accountable?
>
> > People do not "vote" for corporations with their product choices?
>
> Often we don't have choice though, if I want a coffee at an airport then I
> have to have a starbucks. Or if I want a cola flavoured drink I have to
have
> a coke (no supermarkets stock Rola Cola in the UK any more :-( ).
Capitalism
> doesn't necessarily result in more choice...
No Pepsi? Sounds like a great business opportunity to me.
>
> > Business owners provide the valuable services, products and jobs on
which
> > the world runs. Try and have a little respect for what they do.
>
> They do it to make money, not to make people happy. If they could sack all
> their workers and make even more money they would!
Most people work for money, not just business owners. What separates the
best from the money hounds is the real desire to do something they love to
do.
>
> > > Liberal parenting methods were far more effective than the
conservative
> > ones
> > > for me... Although I must say I find it absurd that your black and
white
> > few
> > > of the world extends so far!
> >
> > So you had both? Maybe that is why you are so confused. Your parents
> should
> > have taught you not to lie.
>
> Jesus - it has to be black and white for you! Sometimes they were
> conservative, but as they got older they were more liberal!
Hence your confusion.
Again it is you who sees black and white in every two choices. I guess I am
supposed to define all the millions shades of gray and where on the scale
the two I mention are.
>
> > > > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> > > >
> > > > Childish.
> > >
> > > And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
> >
> > The fact that it is an emotion puts it firmly in the liberal realm of
> > "ideas".
> >
> > What exactly are conservatives afraid of?
>
> Sadam Hussein? Arabs? Asylum seekers and Immigrants? Crime? Downfall of
> standards? The liberal - homosexual elite?
>
So it is the frightened little conservatives that are leading the charge
into the lion's den and facing down the horrible tyrant while the courageous
liberals stand back and screech 'Oh no, please don't make them mad, they
might do something really nasty to hurt us...'
Fascinating world view.
Grahamster Webber
"Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S9pja.369231$sf5.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Grahamster Webber" <graham...@tri.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b6jv9j$rt7$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > > > > Too bad you are still taking shortcuts...
> > > >
> > > > Oh come on, Russ, you should at least explain what you mean. You
might
> > be
> > > > right - I'd be interested to hear your theory.
> > >
> > > I was responding to the preceding sentence where you declare that
> > > considering my ideas would be the waste of time. So you just take the
> > > shortcut and dismiss them without consideration.
> >
> > Don't get all sensitive - come on, out with your theory!
>
> What theory are you talking about? You asked me to explain the preceding
> sentence regarding shortcuts. There was no theory behind it. In fact I
> thought it self-explanatory...
The theory that liberals are childish and conservatives have grown up. Is it
a decent theory or just prejudice?
> >
> > > > > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government
desire
> > to
> > > > > control so much of what people do?
> > > >
> > > > Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running
the
> > > > country.
> > >
> > > Which is why the liberals rely on the least educated and informed as
> their
> > > voting base.
> > >
> > > >With a small government it's the corporations that control
> > > > everything and they're unaccountable.
> > >
> > > It is not "people" who run the corporations? Maybe you think they are
> > > giraffes?
> >
> > It's not the fact that they're 'people' I object to, but that they're
> > unnacountable.
>
> They are accountable to their customers, shareholders, and the laws of the
> land.
Really? Are any of the Enron people going to end up in jail?
> Politicians are accountable?
Of course, if you don't like them, vote them out.
> >
> > > People do not "vote" for corporations with their product choices?
> >
> > Often we don't have choice though, if I want a coffee at an airport then
I
> > have to have a starbucks. Or if I want a cola flavoured drink I have to
> have
> > a coke (no supermarkets stock Rola Cola in the UK any more :-( ).
> Capitalism
> > doesn't necessarily result in more choice...
>
> No Pepsi? Sounds like a great business opportunity to me.
Perhaps coke paid for a deal by which they are the only suppliers of soft
drinks to the airport?
> >
> > > Business owners provide the valuable services, products and jobs on
> which
> > > the world runs. Try and have a little respect for what they do.
> >
> > They do it to make money, not to make people happy. If they could sack
all
> > their workers and make even more money they would!
>
> Most people work for money, not just business owners. What separates the
> best from the money hounds is the real desire to do something they love to
> do.
That's not really relevent. I'm not talking about their motivation, just
their goal. The top CEOs want to make as much money as possible for their
shareholders. They don't care about their employees - they'd just as soon
sack them all if it meant they'd save the money on wages.
> > > > > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> > > > >
> > > > > Childish.
> > > >
> > > > And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
> > >
> > > The fact that it is an emotion puts it firmly in the liberal realm of
> > > "ideas".
> > >
> > > What exactly are conservatives afraid of?
> >
> > Sadam Hussein? Arabs? Asylum seekers and Immigrants? Crime? Downfall of
> > standards? The liberal - homosexual elite?
> >
>
> So it is the frightened little conservatives that are leading the charge
> into the lion's den and facing down the horrible tyrant while the
courageous
> liberals stand back and screech 'Oh no, please don't make them mad, they
> might do something really nasty to hurt us...'
>
> Fascinating world view.
Well Russ, you're not the one doing the fighting! If you were out in Bagdad
then perhaps I would agree with you. As it is many more anti-war people have
had the guts to stand up for their convictions during this war.
Plus the point I was making is that the motivation for this war is fear.
Paul Sinnett
>>>> in adulthood such as self-centeredness, abandonment fears,
>>>> narcissism, intolerance, uncontrolled emotions like rage,
>>>> desire for instant gratification, and the desire to control
>>>> their environment.
>>> So... Conservatism then...
>> These traits do seem to describe quite the justifications for the
>> current action in Iraq that have been proposed by President Bush
>> and his staff.
> From your point of view.
>
> I disagree.
Then perhaps you would care to highlight a justification for the
military action in Iraq that does not conform to one of the above
"childish" traits?
Russ Rose
>
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:S9pja.369231$sf5.6...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> >
> > "Grahamster Webber" <graham...@tri.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b6jv9j$rt7$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > > > > > Too bad you are still taking shortcuts...
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh come on, Russ, you should at least explain what you mean. You
> might
> > > be
> > > > > right - I'd be interested to hear your theory.
> > > >
> > > > I was responding to the preceding sentence where you declare that
> > > > considering my ideas would be the waste of time. So you just take
the
> > > > shortcut and dismiss them without consideration.
> > >
> > > Don't get all sensitive - come on, out with your theory!
> >
> > What theory are you talking about? You asked me to explain the preceding
> > sentence regarding shortcuts. There was no theory behind it. In fact I
> > thought it self-explanatory...
>
> The theory that liberals are childish and conservatives have grown up. Is
it
> a decent theory or just prejudice?
It is my life experience.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child; but when I
became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11
Haven't you ever wondered why there are so few young conservatives and so
few older liberals?
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > > > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government
> desire
> > > to
> > > > > > control so much of what people do?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because we trust people to be able to vote for the people running
> the
> > > > > country.
> > > >
> > > > Which is why the liberals rely on the least educated and informed as
> > their
> > > > voting base.
> > > >
> > > > >With a small government it's the corporations that control
> > > > > everything and they're unaccountable.
> > > >
> > > > It is not "people" who run the corporations? Maybe you think they
are
> > > > giraffes?
> > >
> > > It's not the fact that they're 'people' I object to, but that they're
> > > unnacountable.
> >
> > They are accountable to their customers, shareholders, and the laws of
the
> > land.
>
> Really? Are any of the Enron people going to end up in jail?
I think a few are already there. Some are cooperating to lessen their
sentence.
>
>
>
> > Politicians are accountable?
>
>
>
> Of course, if you don't like them, vote them out.
What if they are someone else's representative?
>
>
> > >
> > > > People do not "vote" for corporations with their product choices?
> > >
> > > Often we don't have choice though, if I want a coffee at an airport
then
> I
> > > have to have a starbucks. Or if I want a cola flavoured drink I have
to
> > have
> > > a coke (no supermarkets stock Rola Cola in the UK any more :-( ).
> > Capitalism
> > > doesn't necessarily result in more choice...
> >
> > No Pepsi? Sounds like a great business opportunity to me.
>
>
>
> Perhaps coke paid for a deal by which they are the only suppliers of soft
> drinks to the airport?
Sounds like evil monopolistic capitalism to me.
>
>
> > >
> > > > Business owners provide the valuable services, products and jobs on
> > which
> > > > the world runs. Try and have a little respect for what they do.
> > >
> > > They do it to make money, not to make people happy. If they could sack
> all
> > > their workers and make even more money they would!
> >
> > Most people work for money, not just business owners. What separates the
> > best from the money hounds is the real desire to do something they love
to
> > do.
>
>
>
> That's not really relevent. I'm not talking about their motivation, just
> their goal.
How do you separate the two? I love the work I do - most of the time - and
that was my goal: to make a living doing something that I love to do. The
fact that I get a lot of money for it is irrelevant. I have turned down much
higher paying jobs.
> The top CEOs want to make as much money as possible for their
> shareholders.
That is their job. Lots of profit is a natural outcome of providing a
product or service that is superior to the competition. Shareholders get
their money from profits. The only way to stay in business is to make a
profit. The CEO's job is to keep the company from going out of business.
> They don't care about their employees - they'd just as soon
> sack them all if it meant they'd save the money on wages.
I would not want to work for such a person. I have been "laid off" due to
managerial incompetence many times in my life. It was always a good thing.
Working for someone who hates people or hate what they do is hell. Working
for someone who loves what they do is great.
>
>
> > > > > > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Childish.
> > > > >
> > > > > And's it's a conservative trait, so there you go!
> > > >
> > > > The fact that it is an emotion puts it firmly in the liberal realm
of
> > > > "ideas".
> > > >
> > > > What exactly are conservatives afraid of?
> > >
> > > Sadam Hussein? Arabs? Asylum seekers and Immigrants? Crime? Downfall
of
> > > standards? The liberal - homosexual elite?
> > >
> >
> > So it is the frightened little conservatives that are leading the charge
> > into the lion's den and facing down the horrible tyrant while the
> courageous
> > liberals stand back and screech 'Oh no, please don't make them mad, they
> > might do something really nasty to hurt us...'
> >
> > Fascinating world view.
>
>
>
> Well Russ, you're not the one doing the fighting! If you were out in
Bagdad
> then perhaps I would agree with you.
I'm hoping to visit Baghdad - as a tourist - in a few years. I guess you
mean I need to be toting an M-16 in order to have any credibility. If they
needed me I'd volunteer without hesitation. The last thing they need is a
near sighted old man shuffling up the sand dunes with them. I am fighting
other important, but far less dangerous battles now.
> As it is many more anti-war people have
> had the guts to stand up for their convictions during this war.
>
Would that be the "human shields" that fled the country before the bombs
started falling? Or was marching in the streets in support of a tyrant your
idea of courage?
>
>
> Plus the point I was making is that the motivation for this war is fear.
>
You believe this because you see the world through fearful eyes.
The motivation not to go to war against a tyrant is fear. The motivation for
social welfare is fear. The motivation for governmental control is fear.
Etc....
Russ Rose
>
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> news:b6jeq0$422$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MT3ja.6446$ug3....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
>
> > >
> > > If liberals "trust" other people, why does liberal government desire
to
> > > control so much of what people do?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah ha ha ha ha ha!!! You should immediately change your posting handle
or
> > blow your brains out! I cannot believe a so-called intellectual would
buy
> > into such rubbish as the bullshit line that conservatives advocate small
> > government!...lol!
>
> Um, that was a little over the top, and I *don't* see where he is buying
the
> bullshit that conservatives are for smaller government, but I agree that
> anyone who thinks the conservative politicians are for smaller government
is
> hopelessly deluded.
Would you agree that conservative politicians want to spend less money than
liberal politicians?
>
> > You're beyond hope, I'm telling you. You probably should -- I don't
> know --
> > crack open a book or two before you go shooting your fool mouth off. I
> > mean, seriously, you've pretty much destroyed my faith in humanity...
>
> You don't have to go so far overboard to make a point.
>
> > MoP
>
> > > >
> > > > Is fear a childish or adult emotion?
> > >
> > > Childish.
>
> No emotion is "childish" or "adult." They're just emotions.
>
I agree.
Part of growing up is learning to control one's emotions. It is not childish
to have the emotions. It is often childish to display those emotions. Have
you ever seen a grown man throw a tantrum?
>
Russ Rose
The courage to fight an evil, tyrannical regime and free the oppressed
people of Iraq. Doing the right thing for other people with great personal
sacrifice. Listen to the soldiers. They know why they are there and what
they are doing is the right thing. They are voluntarily risking their lives,
fighting for the freedom and liberty of people that may not fully appreciate
this sacrifice for years, if ever.
Perhaps you would like to highlight a justification for the military action
that conforms to one of the above "childish" traits.
Jay Vogelsong
> Have you ever seen a grown man throw a tantrum?
I have seen it on newsgroup interactions on quite a few occasions,
unfortunately. I am not saying such people are likely to do such things
on any occasion. It may be that they have not adjusted to the fact that
writing one's thoughts and posting them at newsgroups is not really as
private an activity as it feels like when one does it.
People are probably much more open with their thoughts at newsgroups than
they would ever be in public, which is both a strength and a weakness of
newsgroups.
Sir Frederick
>
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3E8B7FB5...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com...
> > That Guy wrote:
> > >
> so
> > > neately divided into two major groups. Other countries may be like this
> but
> > > it seems not, I do not have enough information to be sure.
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is America unique in this respect?
> > > aren't there a much wider distribution of population through the various
> > > political "camps"?
> >
> > Liberals are children or ersatz adults. Conservatives have
> > "grown up". Obviously the USA is not unique.
>
> Since you can't seem to get your focus out of your own delusional belief
> system, you also missed the point of the question. Another PLONK.
You had two questions, I addressed them in total focus.
What then was the point?
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrases of the week :
"A very sobering question remains - are we fast enough?
Can we prevent a global pandemic of Sars?"
--Dr Julie Gerberding, CDC 2 April,2003
"One of the most constant characteristics of beliefs is
their intolerance. The stronger the belief, the greater
its intolerance. Men dominated by a certitude cannot
tolerate those who do not accept it."--Gustave Le Bon
:-))))Snort!) AHOWR AHOWR!
*************************
Sir Frederick
Some sort of serial mugger or repeat rapist record.
Society needs protection from your chronic anger.
Sir Frederick
That hurts, please don't be so personal about my insanity.
>
> I welcome any and all belief systems to be discussed in a reasonable forum
> such as this.
>
> Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think about it...
MoP appears to be a criminal, thus apolitical.
Criminals are disenfranchised for reasons.
>
> >
> > MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
Aye, I'm a pirate -- ARR!!!
MoP
Myriad of Pain
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> I am sure you have a criminal record.
> Some sort of serial mugger or repeat rapist record.
> Society needs protection from your chronic anger.
>
::looks about nervously::...=P
MoP
Paul Sinnett
>>>>>> valuable in adulthood such as self-centeredness,
>>>>>> abandonment fears, narcissism, intolerance, uncontrolled
>>>>>> emotions like rage, desire for instant gratification, and
>>>>>> the desire to control their environment.
>> Then perhaps you would care to highlight a justification for the
>> military action in Iraq that does not conform to one of the above
>> "childish" traits?
> The courage to fight an evil, tyrannical regime and free the
> oppressed people of Iraq.
That's not even a full sentence. That our soldiers are courageous is not
in question. To fight evil may be a justification of sorts but depends
on our ability to further justify our belief that our enemy is evil. If
our enemy is evil simply because they pray to a different God then that
would be religious intolerance. This has been a good enough
justification for us in the past.
> Doing the right thing for other people with great personal sacrifice.
This is also not a sentence. Perhaps you mean "we are going to war
because it is right"? If so, this is similar to "we are going to war
because they are evil." We are simply labelling our justifications
"right" or "evil". This is fair enough in the general case, but to
justify a specific war we must define what we mean by "it is right" or
"they are evil".
> Listen to the soldiers.
Okay, this is a sentence, but not a valid justification for war. It is
not a soldier's job to decide who to go to war with. Perhaps you meant
"listen to the veterans" since they have already served their country,
and are in a position to influence those politicians whose job it is to
decide. I see "veterans against the Iraq war" (www.vaiw.org), "veterans
for common sense" (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), and "veterans for
peace" (www.veteransforpeace.org), but I don't see "veterans for war."
> Perhaps you would like to highlight a justification for the military
> action that conforms to one of the above "childish" traits.
The main justification I hear repeated incessantly is that we are going
to war to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction because one day
he might use them on us. This justification is clearly an example of
a desire to control our environment, which is a trait you labelled
"childish" above.
Russ Rose
> >>>>>> There are other childish traits that are not nearly as
> >>>>>> valuable in adulthood such as self-centeredness,
> >>>>>> abandonment fears, narcissism, intolerance, uncontrolled
> >>>>>> emotions like rage, desire for instant gratification, and
> >>>>>> the desire to control their environment.
>
> >> Then perhaps you would care to highlight a justification for the
> >> military action in Iraq that does not conform to one of the above
> >> "childish" traits?
>
> > The courage to fight an evil, tyrannical regime and free the
> > oppressed people of Iraq.
>
> That's not even a full sentence.
I have been arrested by the grammar police for this horrible crime. I am
using my one phone call to respond to you. Please accept my profound
apologies for this terrible breach of the great English language.
> That our soldiers are courageous is not
> in question. To fight evil may be a justification of sorts but depends
> on our ability to further justify our belief that our enemy is evil. If
> our enemy is evil simply because they pray to a different God then that
> would be religious intolerance. This has been a good enough
> justification for us in the past.
Do you really believe this war is based on religious intolerance?
>
> > Doing the right thing for other people with great personal sacrifice.
>
> This is also not a sentence.
The judge has sentenced me to 20 years of hard labor digramming sentences on
the prison blackboard.
> Perhaps you mean "we are going to war
> because it is right"? If so, this is similar to "we are going to war
> because they are evil." We are simply labelling our justifications
> "right" or "evil". This is fair enough in the general case, but to
> justify a specific war we must define what we mean by "it is right" or
> "they are evil".
Properly restated [The justification for the military action in Iraq that
does not conform to one of the above "childish" traits? is] doing the right
thing for other people with great personal sacrifice.
>
> > Listen to the soldiers.
>
> Okay, this is a sentence, but not a valid justification for war.
It wasn't meant to be. The entire paragraph was intended to be a cohesive
agrument. You have clipped the rest of the paragraph without annotation.
> It is
> not a soldier's job to decide who to go to war with. Perhaps you meant
> "listen to the veterans" since they have already served their country,
What I meant was clearly stated in the sentences that you clipped.
> and are in a position to influence those politicians whose job it is to
> decide. I see "veterans against the Iraq war" (www.vaiw.org), "veterans
> for common sense" (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), and "veterans for
> peace" (www.veteransforpeace.org), but I don't see "veterans for war."
You forgot to mention the "draft dodging former persident's against war"
(www.ovalofficebjs.sex)
Are you attempting to infer that a majority of men who have worn the uniform
of a US serviceman are against the war in Iraq?
>
> > Perhaps you would like to highlight a justification for the military
> > action that conforms to one of the above "childish" traits.
>
> The main justification I hear repeated incessantly is that we are going
> to war to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction because one day
> he might use them on us. This justification is clearly an example of
> a desire to control our environment, which is a trait you labelled
> "childish" above.
>
Yes. Quite childish to protect and defend the citizens of the United States
against foriegn attack.
Russ Rose
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysysSPAMSPAMSPAM.com> wrote in message
> That Guy wrote:
> >
[clip]
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think about
> it...
> >
>
>
> I don't recall claiming to be liberal.
You "PLONK"-ed him for stating something that most liberals find insulting.
I apologize for drawing an incorrect(?) conclusion.
> In the sense that you mean the term,
> I am most certainly not liberal, at least if I've understood you
correctly.
> If you've been watching the nutbar's posts, then you'd know that he, too,
is
> not up for discussing belief systems. He's pretty much confined to his
> world of delusion. His ideas are not even coherent. In fact, I bet if he
> didn't use all the 'sciency' words that many here are not familiar with,
and
> he just said what he's saying in a straightforward sort of way, he would
be
> on everyone's killfile -- except for those like me who find his posts to
be
> great for making points to fellow intellectuals about how stupid and crazy
> some people are.
>
> See, the fact is that I've seen Freddy torn to shreds by pretty much
> everyone who has made the effort. His response is always to whine and
> killfile the person. The *ONLY* even semi-worthwhile posts that dumb
> son-of-a-bitch makes are ones where he copies and pastes someone else's
> article from the web.
I do find some of those more interesting than his insane stories.
>
> MoP
>
> P.S. - Glad you've been taking my posts in good humor...=)
>
Laughter is the best medicine and I am a sick, sick man...
>
> >
> > >
> > > MoP
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Paul Sinnett
>> is to decide. I see "veterans against the Iraq war" (www.vaiw.org),
>> "veterans for common sense" (www.veteransforcommonsense.org), and
>> "veterans for peace" (www.veteransforpeace.org), but I don't see
>> "veterans for war."
>
> You forgot to mention the "draft dodging former persident's against
> war" (www.ovalofficebjs.sex)
Actually it's www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html and it is interesting
to see so many familiar names. 'W' is top of the pops.
Paul Sinnett
> uniform of a US serviceman are against the war in Iraq?
I don't have the statistics necessary to make that claim. But I can say
that some of the most convincing arguments against war in Iraq, that I
have heard, have come from veterans.
Russ Rose
How many of these veterans site Viet Nam in their argument?
Hopefully you will listen to the stories of the Iraqi people and they will
"convince" you of what a good thing we have done.
Myriad of Pain
>
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> news:zZnja.1316$SJ5....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:F0fja.361701$S_4.436673@rwcrnsc53...
> > >
> [clip]
> > >
> > > Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think about
> > it...
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't recall claiming to be liberal.
>
> You "PLONK"-ed him for stating something that most liberals find
insulting.
> I apologize for drawing an incorrect(?) conclusion.
>
No, I haven' t killfiled him. I don't have a killfile, actually. I don't
want to limit anyone's chances here of having a fair say, no matter how
stupid it is...=P
MoP
That Guy
> Russ wrote:
> > Have you ever seen a grown man throw a tantrum?
I take it you think this is evidence that there are childish emotions. It
isn't. Anger is the emotion involved in tantrum-throwing and it is neither
childish nor adult. If an adult throws a tantrum, they are dealing with
their emotion be exhibiting childish behavior.
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
>
> "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rnYja.386088$S_4.451672@rwcrnsc53...
> >
> > "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> > news:zZnja.1316$SJ5....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:F0fja.361701$S_4.436673@rwcrnsc53...
> > > >
> > [clip]
> > > >
> > > > Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think
about
> > > it...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't recall claiming to be liberal.
> >
> > You "PLONK"-ed him for stating something that most liberals find
> insulting.
> > I apologize for drawing an incorrect(?) conclusion.
> >
>
>
> No, I haven' t killfiled him.
Isn't that what PLONK means? Were you just trying to get his hopes up?
> I don't have a killfile, actually. I don't
> want to limit anyone's chances here of having a fair say, no matter how
> stupid it is...=P
Good for you. Give 'em plenty of rope...
Russ Rose
My full statement was rudely clipped.
Here it is in your original context.
****************************************************
> No emotion is "childish" or "adult." They're just emotions.
>
I agree.
Part of growing up is learning to control one's emotions. It is not childish
to have the emotions. It is often childish to display those emotions. Have
you ever seen a grown man throw a tantrum?
***************************************************
Myriad of Pain
>
> "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> news:pA7ka.208$k22...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rnYja.386088$S_4.451672@rwcrnsc53...
> > >
> > > "Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
> > > news:zZnja.1316$SJ5....@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Russ Rose" <russ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:F0fja.361701$S_4.436673@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > >
> > > [clip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Why you liberals do not should be quite revealing to you. Think
> about
> > > > it...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't recall claiming to be liberal.
> > >
> > > You "PLONK"-ed him for stating something that most liberals find
> > insulting.
> > > I apologize for drawing an incorrect(?) conclusion.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, I haven' t killfiled him.
>
> Isn't that what PLONK means? Were you just trying to get his hopes up?
>
As far as I know, that is what 'plonk' means. However, I'm not sure why you
seem to think that I was threatening to killfile Freddy or had killfiled
him... I mean, I guess my take on the majority of what Freddy says could
lead one to assume that I would want to killfile him, but I haven't, nor
have I suggested that I might. What made you think otherwise?
> > I don't have a killfile, actually. I don't
> > want to limit anyone's chances here of having a fair say, no matter how
> > stupid it is...=P
>
> Good for you. Give 'em plenty of rope...
>
That's a marvelous way of putting it! I'm liking you better and better as
we talk...=P You should just come over to the dark side! --
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-- ::pauses for
breath:: --HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
MoP
Bill Lewis Clark
> As far as I know, that is what 'plonk' means. However, I'm not sure why you
> seem to think that I was threatening to killfile Freddy or had killfiled
> him... I mean, I guess my take on the majority of what Freddy says could
> lead one to assume that I would want to killfile him, but I haven't, nor
> have I suggested that I might. What made you think otherwise?
He's confusing you with "That Guy", who *did* PLONK Freddy:
Gotta love confused attributions. :)
-Bill Lewis Clark
Myriad of Pain
"Bill Lewis Clark" <wcl...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:29b75758.0304...@posting.google.com...
Ah! -- Okay, thanks! That makes sense now...=)
MoP
Russ Rose
"Bill Lewis Clark" <wcl...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:29b75758.0304...@posting.google.com...
news:<dNPka.696$k22...@tornadotest1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > As far as I know, that is what 'plonk' means. However, I'm not sure why
you
> > seem to think that I was threatening to killfile Freddy or had killfiled
> > him... I mean, I guess my take on the majority of what Freddy says
could
> > lead one to assume that I would want to killfile him, but I haven't, nor
> > have I suggested that I might. What made you think otherwise?
>
> He's confusing you with "That Guy", who *did* PLONK Freddy:
A voice of reason. I never even looked at the author that continued the
thread.
My apologies and many thanks.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1092641119d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=U
Russ Rose
"Myriad of Pain" <M...@noneofyobzNS.com> wrote in message
My mistake. Too many posts, too little attention to detail.
>
> > > I don't have a killfile, actually. I don't
> > > want to limit anyone's chances here of having a fair say, no matter
how
> > > stupid it is...=P
> >
> > Good for you. Give 'em plenty of rope...
> >
>
>
> That's a marvelous way of putting it! I'm liking you better and better as
> we talk...=P You should just come over to the dark side! --
Been there, done that.
Kim
> My response is that I dont really participate in the system. I complain
> about it alot-but I dont vote because I presume that my choice won't
> win(I typically choose somebody from some "other" political party). I
> suppose I dont have the right to complain,then,when somebody whom I dont
> like wins the election-eh? What this country needs is AT LEAST two other
> major parties(Libertarian and Green party?)- so that a more complete
> choice is offered to the public-so that a truer sense of democracy
> becomes realised.
There is a theory called "Exponentialism" that states that you can
tell what is right or wrong based on what would happen if eveybody was
to follow the course of action in question. For example, if everyone
killed someone, everyone would die. Therefor it is wrong. If everyone
littered the Earth would be a horrible mess, so put your garbage in
the bin.
If everyone thinks "my vote wont count" then nobody will vote and
democracy falls apart.
Even if your party doesn't win, if they get 7% of the vote, that is
enough for the major parties to ask "What were those 7% wanting that
we haven't got?". The more votes they get, the more people will look
at their policies even if they don't win.
The actual overall validity of exponentialism overall is another
debate. It has it's flaws, but also has it's applications I beleive.
It doesn't really tell you what's right or wrong though, because you
are still personally making the judgement on whether, for example,
everybody dring is a bad thing.
Anyhow, what I'm saying is that I think you should vote anyhow.
Cheers,
Kim.
Jay Vogelsong
> If everyone thinks "my vote won't count" then nobody will vote and
> democracy falls apart.
How about if I say "my vote is statistically insignificant, because all
we need is a representative sampling of votes to read the will of the
people." That way I would be saved from voting unless the number of
people who actually *do* vote drops below what one might consider a safe
number.
You see, I believe in democracy. For me, that means I think the majority
should have its way even if I disagree with them, because even a good
policy can be corrupted in practice if people do not support it. I think
we have largely grown, as a nation, to the point where differences of
opinion are within a relatively safe range among mainstream candidates.
I also believe our general education is effective, so our politicians are
already of a certain quality. I usually assume people are voting for the
best possibilities. If there is a close election, I assume either
candidate might do just as well.
And I don't complain about politicians, unless they fail to live up to
their expressed intentions. That potentially corrupts the system by
putting one person's opinion above the majority.
Bill Lewis Clark
> There is a theory called "Exponentialism" that states that you can
> tell what is right or wrong based on what would happen if eveybody was
> to follow the course of action in question.
That's basically the foundation for Kant's theory of ethics, as well.
He felt we should act only on moral rules that could be universalized.
> Anyhow, what I'm saying is that I think [AUMsilence] should vote anyhow.
(I'm assuming "AUMsilence" is from the USA, as am I.)
I'd encourage anyone in the US *not* to vote, unless they're a
supporter of the two-party system. Low voter turnout is the leading
reason behind the recent focus on election reform. The election
system used in most elections in the US, plurality voting, is the main
culprit behind the plight of third-parties.
I've refused to vote in any major elections for the past twelve years,
for two reasons. Firstly, I feel it would be wrong to participate in
a system I thoroughly disagree with, because it would serve to
legitimize it. Secondly, I'm doing my part to bring additional
pressure to bear on the issue of election reform, by contributing to
low voter turnout rates.
Once Instant Runoff Voting (aka Preference Voting) is implemented in
the US, I'll start voting again. It was recently put in place in San
Francisco, by means of a public referendum, and is under consideration
in several other locales. It's also under serious consideration by
the committees involved in federal election reform, and has been
endorsed by leaders such as Jesse Jackson. So, I take these all as
encouraging signs.
-Bill Lewis Clark
Paul Sinnett
>> anyhow.
>
> (I'm assuming "AUMsilence" is from the USA, as am I.)
>
> I'd encourage anyone in the US *not* to vote, unless they're a
> supporter of the two-party system. Low voter turnout is the leading
> reason behind the recent focus on election reform. The election
> system used in most elections in the US, plurality voting, is the
> main culprit behind the plight of third-parties.
This is happening in the UK too. That is, low voter turnout is leading
to a focus on electoral reform. I think vote trading is increasing too.
Personally I think it's not the voting system that's at fault but the
system of democracy we use. I think technology has advanced to the stage
where we could have a direct democracy for most major decisions. We (the
public) already put more effort into telephone polls than into general
elections.
Barry Etheridge
God save us from the tyranny of direct democracy. The will of the people?
That doesn't scare you at all? Government by lowest common denominator - how
delightful!
Paul Sinnett
>>system of democracy we use. I think technology has advanced to the stage
>>where we could have a direct democracy for most major decisions. We (the
>>public) already put more effort into telephone polls than into general
>>elections.
> God save us from the tyranny of direct democracy. The will of the people?
> That doesn't scare you at all? Government by lowest common denominator - how
> delightful!
We already have government by the lowest common dominators -
politicians. ;-)
Bill Lewis Clark
> We already have government by the lowest common dominators -
> politicians. ;-)
I used to think that direct participatory democracy was a preferable
system. However, after having lived in California for a while (where
they have the referendum,) I'm more inclined to agree with Barry, now.
Politicians are easily corrupted and manipulated, but unfortunately it
seems that it's even easier (and cheaper) to manipulate the general
public with slick ad campaigns.
On the other hand, I'm reminded of something I believe Thomas
Jefferson once said, in response to the claim that the common people
weren't able to effectively govern themselves -- he said that unless
they were given the chance, they never would be.
So, perhaps direct participatory democracy *would* be worse than
representative democracy -- but only for a time. Maybe it's just the
bullet we have to bite, in order to take things to the next level.
Anyway, I leave you with a different quote from Jefferson, in the same
vein:
"I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may
be trusted to govern themselves without a master." - Thomas Jefferson
(Letter to David Hartley; 1787)
-Bill Lewis Clark
Rob Lanphier
> Once Instant Runoff Voting (aka Preference Voting) is implemented in
> the US, I'll start voting again. It was recently put in place in San
> Francisco, by means of a public referendum, and is under consideration
> in several other locales. It's also under serious consideration by
> the committees involved in federal election reform, and has been
> endorsed by leaders such as Jesse Jackson. So, I take these all as
> encouraging signs.
While Instant Runoff is interesting, Condorcet is a much better
system:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_method
I suppose it'll be easier to implement Condorcet once Instant Runoff
advocates are successful in getting voting equipment manufacturers to
deal with ranked ballots (that's the big problem in San Francisco with
Instant Runoff now), but it would be nice to do it right the first
time, instead of as a two-putt.
Rob Lanphier
Bill Lewis Clark
> While Instant Runoff is interesting, Condorcet is a much better
> system:
I disagree. First off, Condorcet technically isn't a complete voting
method, because it doesn't always produce a winner. There are several
ways to solve this, each of which gives rise to a different system
(e.g. Black, Copeland, Dodgson, Smith/IRV, etc.)
No voting method (except a single-vote dictatorship) is perfect -- all
violate *some* criteria of fairness. This is known as "Arrow's
Impossibility Theorem." Here is a rather extensive list of voting
methods and criteria:
http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml
Kenneth Arrow actually proved his theorem for a smaller subset of
these criteria, which can serve as a basis for the rest.
In any event, my primary concern with voting methods is that they not
lead to a two-party system. All of the various extensions of the
Condorcet method violate the Secret Preferences Criterion which says:
"If alternative X wins, and some of the ballots are modified in their
rankings below X, X must still win."
In short, this means that under a Condorcet-type system, minor party
candidates would still have the potential to "spoil" the election for
more popular candidates, which is what leads to the dominance of the
two-party system in the first place. Only IRV and its variants pass
this criterion, which is why I prefer them over all other systems.
Condorcet-type methods still avoid some of the other "spoiler"
pitfalls (there are many ways for "spoiling" to occur) and so I
wouldn't totally oppose a switch from Plurality voting to some
Condorcet-type method -- but I'd still rather have IRV.
-Bill Lewis Clark
Rob Lanphier
> ro...@robla.net (Rob Lanphier) wrote in message news:<bf570e3.03041...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > While Instant Runoff is interesting, Condorcet is a much better
> > system:
>
> I disagree. First off, Condorcet technically isn't a complete voting
> method, because it doesn't always produce a winner. There are several
> ways to solve this, each of which gives rise to a different system
> (e.g. Black, Copeland, Dodgson, Smith/IRV, etc.)
"Condorcet" can be used to describe a method, since Condorcet himself
outlined a tiebreaker which is pretty well. It's outlined in the
article I referenced.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_method
> No voting method (except a single-vote dictatorship) is perfect -- all
> violate *some* criteria of fairness. This is known as "Arrow's
> Impossibility Theorem." Here is a rather extensive list of voting
> methods and criteria:
>
> http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml
>
> Kenneth Arrow actually proved his theorem for a smaller subset of
> these criteria, which can serve as a basis for the rest.
Arrow's thereom is an important result, but it leads to a rather
stupid fatalism about fixing voting systems. I'm not sure why you
bring it up here...usually, people bring it up when they are arguing
that we should just stick with plurality.
Regardless, here's a response to Arrow's thereom:
http://www.electionmethods.org/Arrow.html
It points out that all you have to do is slightly redefine one of
Arrow's criteria (Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion,
or IIAC), and Condorcet can meet it while meeting all of the others.
IIAC is basically Arrow's statement of the spoiler problem. IRV fails
IIAC outright, while Condorcet only fails when there's a circular tie
(a relatively rare occurance).
> In any event, my primary concern with voting methods is that they not
> lead to a two-party system. All of the various extensions of the
> Condorcet method violate the Secret Preferences Criterion which says:
>
> "If alternative X wins, and some of the ballots are modified in their
> rankings below X, X must still win."
>
> In short, this means that under a Condorcet-type system, minor party
> candidates would still have the potential to "spoil" the election for
> more popular candidates, which is what leads to the dominance of the
> two-party system in the first place. Only IRV and its variants pass
> this criterion, which is why I prefer them over all other systems.
IRV elections only help minor parties *when they stay minor*. As soon
as a minor party starts threatening to win, then it can still become a
spoiler. As an example, think about a scenario in the last election
where Nader actually picked up significant support:
48% vote for 1. Bush
5% vote for 1. Gore
20% vote for 1. Gore, 2. Nader
27% vote for 1. Nader, 2. Gore
Under IRV, Gore would have been eliminated in the first round with
only 25% of the vote (20%+5%). Nader would have then only had 47% of
the vote vs. Bush's 48%.
Anecdotally, I've heard that Australian voters (who have had IRV since
the 1920s) tend to bury their top preference when voting for minor
party candidates, for fear of this very scenario. This is why
Australia is still ostensively a two-party system. See the following
email for more detail on this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-m...@eskimo.com/msg08429.html
> Condorcet-type methods still avoid some of the other "spoiler"
> pitfalls (there are many ways for "spoiling" to occur) and so I
> wouldn't totally oppose a switch from Plurality voting to some
> Condorcet-type method -- but I'd still rather have IRV.
IRV certainly has more political momentum right now. While I'm glad
IRV supporters out there are highlighting the problem, I'm worried
that the proposed solution won't really fix the problem.
I started off as an IRV supporter many years ago, so I understand the
initial appeal of the system. Intuitively, it feels like it *should*
fix the spoiler problem. However, after spending some time thinking
through spolier scenarios (trying to defend IRV from the criticisms of
a Condorcet supporter), I had to acquiesce that the spoiler problem
is better fixed by Condorcet.
Rob
Bill Lewis Clark
> "Condorcet" can be used to describe a method, since Condorcet himself
> outlined a tiebreaker which is pretty well.
Okay, I'll buy that.
> Arrow's thereom is an important result, but it leads to a rather
> stupid fatalism about fixing voting systems. I'm not sure why you
> bring it up here...usually, people bring it up when they are arguing
> that we should just stick with plurality.
My point was simply that there can be no *single* "best" voting
system, so independently of particular criteria, it makes only limited
sense to compare voting systems. Some systems (like plurality) suffer
from a multitude of problems and fairness criteria violations, and are
rather clearly inferior -- but past a certain point, all voting
systems are pretty much equipotent.
Before reading some of your references, I'd thought IRV to be in that
upper-most class of equipotent voting systems. However, many
authorities seem to consider it one of the more obviously flawed
systems. I'll have to do some more of my own research and thinking on
this issue, before I separate the facts from the opinion.
However, my main underlying point still stands -- there are other
systems that are just as good as Condorcet, whether or not IRV happens
to be one of them.
> Regardless, here's a response to Arrow's thereom:
> http://www.electionmethods.org/Arrow.html
It's well-written, but I still don't buy it. It seems rather
disingenuous to argue that the criterion that should be relaxed just
so happens to be the one that Condorcet violates. Appeals to
intuitions regarding fairness are pointless here, since they just beg
the question.
The claim that "cyclic ambiguities are true ambiguities in the will of
the electorate, and an election method can hardly be faulted for
accurately reflecting them and attempting to resolve them rationally"
is just laughable.
Proponents of *any* voting system could make a similar claim, by
arguing that whatever ambiguities their system exhibited were "true
ambiguities." One man's "true ambiguities" are another's technical
flaws.
> IIAC is basically Arrow's statement of the spoiler problem.
Now that's something new to me, and does more to convince me that I
should be supporting Condorcet's over IRV, than any of the other
arguments. I never realized that IIAC captured the essence of the
spoiler problem so well, but re-reading it now it's very clear to me
that you're right, so thank you for pointing that out to me.
> IRV elections only help minor parties *when they stay minor*.
That's just fine with me. I'm against the party system in general, so
anything that dilutes their power is okay in my book.
> 48% vote for 1. Bush
> 5% vote for 1. Gore
> 20% vote for 1. Gore, 2. Nader
> 27% vote for 1. Nader, 2. Gore
> Under IRV, Gore would have been eliminated in the first round with
> only 25% of the vote (20%+5%). Nader would have then only had 47% of
> the vote vs. Bush's 48%.
Nice example, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Granted, on the
one hand Nader spoiled the election for Gore (since Gore beats Bush in
the cycle.) On the other hand, Nader has stronger support than Gore.
My only real concern with the spoiler problem is that it allows the
dominant parties to "swallow" smaller parties. Greens become
Democrats, because they're made to feel guilty about costing Gore the
election and thereby putting Bush into office.
However, in this example it's not clear *what* will result. The
strong support for Nader makes it unlikely that the Democrats will
simply absorb the Greens. More likely, I'd guess we'd see a party
split within the Democrats, with the smaller group of hard-core Gore
supporters (the 5% group) splitting off from the Democratic voters
more sympathetic to Nader.
That type of party fragmentation is precisely what I'd like, so the
"flaw" in IRV in this case isn't something I'm necessarily interested
in seeing fixed.
> I started off as an IRV supporter many years ago, so I understand the
> initial appeal of the system. Intuitively, it feels like it *should*
> fix the spoiler problem. However, after spending some time thinking
> through spolier scenarios (trying to defend IRV from the criticisms of
> a Condorcet supporter), I had to acquiesce that the spoiler problem
> is better fixed by Condorcet.
Indeed, with a few minor points I'd like to give more thought to (such
as that highlighted in the above example,) you've basically convinced
me, as well. I'm still very much opposed to treating Condorcet as if
it were a "nearly-perfect" system, or to relaxing IIAC simply for the
sake of making Condorcet pass -- but it does seem to address the
particular problem I'm most interested in (spoilers), better than IRV.
Cheers,
-Bill Lewis Clark
Bill Lewis Clark
> Indeed, with a few minor points I'd like to give more thought to (such
> as that highlighted in the above example,) you've basically convinced
> me, as well.
Here's a nice response to the pro-Condorcet stance:
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/various1.htm
I think it's too biased in its assessment of the situation overall,
but it does raise some valid points. In particular, I like the
emphasis on the "right tool for the right job" approach to comparisons
between various voting systems.
-Bill Lewis Clark
Rob Lanphier
> wcl...@eden.rutgers.edu (Bill Lewis Clark) wrote in message news:<29b75758.0304...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Indeed, with a few minor points I'd like to give more thought to (such
> > as that highlighted in the above example,) you've basically convinced
> > me, as well.
>
> Here's a nice response to the pro-Condorcet stance:
>
> http://www.fairvote.org/irv/various1.htm
>
> I think it's too biased in its assessment of the situation overall,
> but it does raise some valid points.
Which points resonated with you? I find it to be a very biased
assessment, done in a tone which implies balance.
For example, saying that the "Condorcet paradox" only applies to
Condorcet's method is absurd. The paradox is a general problem about
electorates sometimes being conflicted; they are conflicted regardless
of the system chosen to resolve the conflict. Condorcet's method
needs a tie-breaker to deal with that, which it does. It seems rather
logical that a tie-breaker would be needed when the electorate is
conflicted ala Condorcet's paradox.
IRV also can have tie-breaker situations that have nothing to do with
Condorcet's paradox. In fact, there was a recent Condorcet election
which, had IRV been used, would have resulted in one of these ties
that would have lead to a surprising conclusion to the election.
The Debian project elects their leader using Condorcet. The top three
candidates in this election were all very strong candidates, and the
results were close. However, there was a clear Condorcet winner
(Martin Michlmayr), so no Condorcet paradox was experienced.
Since the Debian project actually posts the ballots in the election,
it was possible to see how the election would have gone had IRV been
used. I used the rules that were just passed in San Francisco to
tally the election, and one of the elimination passes resulted in a
tie for last place (between the lowest two of the three candidates).
What the rules say about that is that *both* candidates get
eliminated. This is despite the fact that had either candidate been
eliminated alone, the transfers over to the other tied candidate would
have resulted in the tied candidate beating the "leading" candidate.
It would have been an awful result. To the point, a head-to-head
election between the IRV winner and the Condorcet winner would have
easily gone to the Condorcet winner. The full analysis is here:
http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32
So, was the "Condorcet paradox" issue the part that resonated, or was
there something else that was good about it?
> In particular, I like the
> emphasis on the "right tool for the right job" approach to comparisons
> between various voting systems.
It's an interesting rhetorical technique. However, it says "use the
right tool for the job", and then doesn't point out where Condorcet or
Approval are the right tools. Very disingenuous. I don't use that
argument when talking about IRV, because that would imply that IRV is
the right tool in some cases. I can't think of any cases where IRV
would be better than Condorcet.
I would be more likely to agree that Approval is the better tool in
some cases. In particular, in the case where concession is valued
over majority appeal, Approval might be a better system. The U.N.
elects the Secretary-General using Approval, which makes a certain
amount of sense. I think that Condorcet may still be better here, but
I think Approval is a very respectable and defensible choice.
Rob
Bill Lewis Clark
> I find [http://www.fairvote.org/irv/various1.htm] to be a very biased
> assessment, done in a tone which implies balance.
That was precisely my opinion regarding this site:
http://www.electionmethods.org/Arrow.html
I think each is pretty obvious about its bias, but each raises some
interesting points, as well. I also think the very ways the biases
are exhibited tell us something about the mind-set of those arguing
for each system.
> For example, saying that the "Condorcet paradox" only applies to
> Condorcet's method is absurd. The paradox is a general problem about
> electorates sometimes being conflicted; they are conflicted regardless
> of the system chosen to resolve the conflict.
It depends on your concept of fairness. Some see the paradox as a
general problem about conflicted electorates, as you seem to. But for
others, who don't accept the criteria by which the Condorcet method
rates well, and don't include the concept of hypothetical pairwise
comparisons as part of their notion of fairness, the paradox is solely
an irrelevant artifact of a particular type of method.
Consider the following scenario:
Bob and Barb are good friends. Barb suggests a fairness critereon
whereby whoever Bob and Barb vote for, that candidate should be the
winner. Bob and Barb might consider this critereon fair (though it
seems doubtful anyone else would.) Bob then goes on to introduce the
'B&B method' of determining the outcome of an election, in which
whoever Bob and Barb vote for is delcared winner. Bob might even
argue in support of his method by pointing out that the B&B method is
the only known method capable of satisfying *all* of Arrow's criteria
for fairness!
Clearly nobody would buy Bob's argument that when the B&B method fails
to produce a result, because Bob and Barb disagree on a winner, that
it represents a conflict on the part of the electorate as a whole.
Obviously the situation is less extreme in the case of pairwise
comparisons, but the gist of it is the same. Some people find
pairwise methods intuitively more fair, and some don't.
> In fact, there was a recent Condorcet election which, had IRV been
> used, would have resulted in one of these ties that would have lead
> to a surprising conclusion to the election.
The situation you go on to describe is only surprising if you hold
certain notions about fairness. Otherwise, it might be viewed as an
interesting statistical fact about the election, and little more.
Personally, I'm not entirely sure where I stand. Either way, I'm
nonetheless firmly decided that it's a matter of opinion which
fairness criteria are most important, and not a matter of fact. That
is to say, I'm non-cognitivist about fairness, at least with regard to
electoral systems.
> It's an interesting rhetorical technique. However, it says "use the
> right tool for the job", and then doesn't point out where Condorcet or
> Approval are the right tools. Very disingenuous.
I agree, and that's a big part of why I considered it biased. I also
found it disingenuous that Condorcet and Plurality were placed on
opposite ends of a scale in which IRV is found to be perfectly in
balance.
However, I do like the basis for the scale itself, using measures for
depth-of-support breadth-of-support, if only because it helps draw out
more differences in notions of fairness.
Going back to your earlier example of an election between Bush, Gore,
and Nader, I think the relative appeal of Condorcet vs. IRV can now be
made more clear.
To some, it seems perfectly natural that Gore lose out to Nader in
runoff elimination, because Nader has far greater depth of support.
To them, it doesn't matter so much that Gore has broader support. (I
alluded to something like this in a previous post, but lacked the
proper concepts to describe it fully.)
To others, the fact that Gore has broader support than Nader (and,
more importantly, than Bush) is of the utmost importance. To these
folk, Condorcet will be far more appealing.
By using various Borda method weightings, it's possible to create an
electoral system with just about any mix of depth- vs.
breadth-of-support you like. Borda introduces its own problems,
however. The feature-space of electoral systems is almost certainly
more than two, in any event.
> I can't think of any cases where IRV would be better than Condorcet.
If you want to determine which candidates are among those with the
broadest of the deepest support, then IRV is pretty well-suited.
Runoff elimination is based on depth of support, and winning is
ultimately determined by breadth.
If you think winning should be determined *solely* by breadth of
support, with no concern for depth of support at all, then Condorcet
will seem clearly superior to IRV.
In any event, I really don't care so much about 'fairness' as I do
about opposing party politics. Condorcet seems to be more effective
against the spoiler problem than other methods, and less supportive of
political parties in general, so I'm leaning more toward backing it,
on a personal level.
Beyond that, I view the whole issue of preferring one method to
another to be something like a religious dispute, or trying to debate
which is the best band of all time, or whether Linux is better than
BSD. I just don't think there's a fact of the matter regarding which
electoral method is 'better', without also asking "at what?"
-Bill Lewis Clark
Rob Lanphier
I'm going to respond to bits of out of order here:
wcl...@eden.rutgers.edu (Bill Lewis Clark) wrote in message news:<29b75758.0304...@posting.google.com>...
> Beyond that, I view the whole issue of preferring one method to
> another to be something like a religious dispute, or trying to debate
> which is the best band of all time, or whether Linux is better than
> BSD. I just don't think there's a fact of the matter regarding which
> electoral method is 'better', without also asking "at what?"
I'll agree that it can be a religious dispute, but the problem here is
that "there can be only one". If I have a personal favorite election
system, it doesn't do me a lick of good unless everyone else is using
it. The type of election I generally think of when advocating
Condorcet is a large, highly partisan single candidate election where
a strong leader is needed. The U.S. presidential election is a good
example, but since most elections are about selecting leaders, I
usually don't talk about the others.
Actually, my ideal setup for the U.S. Government would be a House of
Representatives chosen by proportional representation (the single
transferrable vote variety), where the Speaker of the House is elected
via Condorcet or Approval, a Senate elected via Condorcet, and a
President elected via Condorcet.
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> Bob and Barb are good friends. Barb suggests a fairness critereon
> whereby whoever Bob and Barb vote for, that candidate should be the
> winner [(the B&B method)]
> [...]
> Clearly nobody would buy Bob's argument that when the B&B method fails
> to produce a result, because Bob and Barb disagree on a winner, that
> it represents a conflict on the part of the electorate as a whole.
>
> Obviously the situation is less extreme in the case of pairwise
> comparisons, but the gist of it is the same. Some people find
> pairwise methods intuitively more fair, and some don't.
That's a fine relativist argument, but at the end of the day, we've
all got to live with just one system. I think you should let everyone
else speak for themselves, and stick to addressing what *you* think is
fair.
> ro...@robla.net (Rob Lanphier) wrote in message news:<bf570e3.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> > In fact, there was a recent Condorcet election which, had IRV been
> > used, would have resulted in one of these ties that would have lead
> > to a surprising conclusion to the election.
>
> The situation you go on to describe is only surprising if you hold
> certain notions about fairness. Otherwise, it might be viewed as an
> interesting statistical fact about the election, and little more.
What I found interesting was that it was that it wasn't nearly a tie
per se, but yet, changing one vote could make the election swing a
second way, and changing a different vote could make it swing a third.
That doesn't seem terribly stable. The surprise came from an
ill-advised elimination tie-breaker.
> Personally, I'm not entirely sure where I stand. Either way, I'm
> nonetheless firmly decided that it's a matter of opinion which
> fairness criteria are most important, and not a matter of fact. That
> is to say, I'm non-cognitivist about fairness, at least with regard to
> electoral systems.
Sure, it's a matter of opinion. That doesn't make the decision any
less important.
> In any event, I really don't care so much about 'fairness' as I do
> about opposing party politics. Condorcet seems to be more effective
> against the spoiler problem than other methods, and less supportive of
> political parties in general, so I'm leaning more toward backing it,
> on a personal level.
I think we agree on this point. I don't care so much about "fairness"
for "fairness" sake. I don't think it's fair that any political
parties, let alone a duopoly, hold so much power in this country, and
so "fairness" comes into play, but at the end of the day, I want to
devolve party power in a way that improves matters.
Rob