DiscussMormonism.com

This is just so strange on so many levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... wlW4lx6TTo

Do liberals really think like this? Even if it weren't so creepy, the disconnect from reality is stunning. Just curious, but does anyone find this persuasive at all?

It's so bizarre! I laughed a little. I've been laughing at truly bizarre stuff lately.

Bob,

Wasn't it the guitarist or something from Styx who said that for the rock-opera Mr. Roboto, that, he had to dress up, go on stage, and then plead with Mr. Roboto, "But Mr. Roboto, what about the children...?"

Yes, this is bad, but I'm sure "the right" has equally lame webisodes. One of the problems with politics is that the situations people want to control are just so freaking complex that the average Phd, let alone the average person, is hopless to make the right call. So then it becomes, take the best brains from either side, if there really are sides in the end, and make the best case. If the case is that side A is better than side B by any margin, it's clear that we should have side A in power. But reasoning to that end with the public is hopeless, therefore, does it not seem like the rational course is to get people to vote A by any means available? By catchy, viral soundbytes etc.? It's virtually impossible to reason any other way. The cost/benefit of reason with hundreds of millions is too low.

Just to clarify, even if we don't have fantastic proof that one side is better, if our sincere gut instinct leads us to believe A is better, and knowing the only way to make A come about is by convincing hundreds of millions to vote A, then should we not look for the most effective way -- the means -- to bring about the end of A winning? I don't see how either side could reason any other way and stand a chance.

LOL. That's the kind of idealistic crap we sang in school back in the 70s.

Gadianton wrote:Bob,

Wasn't it the guitarist or something from Styx who said that for the rock-opera Mr. Roboto, that, he had to dress up, go on stage, and then plead with Mr. Roboto, "But Mr. Roboto, what about the children...?"

Yes, this is bad, but I'm sure "the right" has equally lame webisodes. One of the problems with politics is that the situations people want to control are just so freaking complex that the average Phd, let alone the average person, is hopless to make the right call. So then it becomes, take the best brains from either side, if there really are sides in the end, and make the best case. If the case is that side A is better than side B by any margin, it's clear that we should have side A in power. But reasoning to that end with the public is hopeless, therefore, does it not seem like the rational course is to get people to vote A by any means available? By catchy, viral soundbytes etc.? It's virtually impossible to reason any other way. The cost/benefit of reason with hundreds of millions is too low.

Just to clarify, even if we don't have fantastic proof that one side is better, if our sincere gut instinct leads us to believe A is better, and knowing the only way to make A come about is by convincing hundreds of millions to vote A, then should we not look for the most effective way -- the means -- to bring about the end of A winning? I don't see how either side could reason any other way and stand a chance.

Of course there are nuts on the right and similarly lame right-wing webpisodes. And of course people should try to convince other people they are right--that's the nature of politics, isn't it? But this one is exceptionally lame and creepy, and I can't imagine anyone thinking it's the most effective way to bring about a liberal win.

"We haven't killed all the polar bears, but it's not for lack of trying..."

Good grief.

The children of the future aren't going to be worried about whether or not we saved the polar bears. They're going to be pissed off about the trillions of debt we're going to give them, the percentage of their paychecks going to social security, the useless dollar, and the lower standard of living.

cinepro wrote:"We haven't killed all the polar bears, but it's not for lack of trying..."

Good grief.

WHAT? But, but...look at them!

cinepro wrote:"We haven't killed all the polar bears, but it's not for lack of trying..."

Good grief.

The children of the future aren't going to be worried about whether or not we saved the polar bears. They're going to be pissed off about the trillions of debt we're going to give them, the percentage of their paychecks going to social security, the useless dollar, and the lower standard of living.

They'll also be a bit cheesed off that we never paid the electric bill...

just me wrote:WHAT? But, but...look at them!

Why has one of them got a Dymo label on its arse?

They look lovely, but I don't think I could eat a whole one...