|
29 Mar 08 - 01:02 PM (#2300435) Subject: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest ""To err is human, to rationalize even more so." It is Bush's war. Clinton voted to invade. Obama voted to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain supported the surge and staying the course. How can anyone believe any one of the above will fulfill the will of the American public, a majority of whom now opposes war and further spending on war? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 01:16 PM (#2300441) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest In other words... How do we come to believe that we are right and reasonable... and why do we maintain that dangerous self-deception in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary? Politicians do it, pundits do it, doctors, lawyers, teachers, therapists do it... ??? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 01:34 PM (#2300448) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Mrrzy Sounds like any religion to me... |
|
29 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM (#2300451) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos The obsession with what was ignores the potential for change; that's why. The key is understanding the spectrum of human nature well enough to hear the difference in tones between those who can and do change, and those who say anything, yet change not. Growth requires self-knowledge enough to know its starting place, at least somewhat. I don't think the American public expect the withdrawal of forces to look like some "Y" swimming session where the coach blows a whistle and everybody scrambles for the shallow end. I expect what "they", in the main, want is a responsible, safe and rapid withdrawal -- exactly what Obama said he would tackle first speaking to Barbara Wawa yesterday or the day before. As for Hillary or McCain, I am less confident. A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 01:49 PM (#2300456) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Sure Amos. I'll believe Obama will do it just as soon as he admits he made an awful, awful mistake in judgment to vote to keep the troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM (#2300463) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor Guest, Guest is obviously spewing out poorly considered nonsense so that she will get attention. It may behoove us male chauvinist pigs with our heads up our asses only to respond when she offers a reasoned argument. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:05 PM (#2300464) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Yes, please Jack. I would LOVE it if you and Amos would ignore me. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM (#2300467) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Ebbie I would imagine there is such a thing as a female chauvinist pig- if so, count me among them. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM (#2300471) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Getting back to the topic... I began thinking about this as I drove home listening to NPR after work yesterday. The conversation was about Machiavelli's "The Prince". From their transcript: "But Machiavelli was not simply a political writer. Italian studies Professor Albert Ascoli describes him as a skilled literary stylist who deliberately courted controversy. Machiavelli used irony and sarcasm, but Ascoli says he was aware "that virtually every precept that he gives — or many of them — are going to be understood to be comic inversions of the accepted wisdom about things." As an example, Ascoli points to this passage: This raises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the contrary. My reply is that one would like to be both; but it is difficult to combine love and fear. If one has to choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. Machiavelli's The Prince was written in a time of political upheaval. He used direct language and dry humor to address the problems one could expect when setting out to overthrow an existing state." |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:26 PM (#2300477) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor That is not exactly what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that all of us that you have insulted for talking about the same old things only respond to those arguments that you make which are reasons and show some thought and mental effort on your part. Which so far, in my reading of your posts, would add up to a very small percentage. It seems to me that you are justs throwing out bullshit off the top of your head designed to get the maximum response for the minimum effort on your part. Your premises are simplistic, childish crap. Yes it is Bush's War. But Clinton's vote was not a simple vote to invade. That's not what the resolution said. Clinton, Kerry and the other Democrats who supported the resolution, voted to give President Bush an open ended mandate to deal with the Iraq. The resolution, in effect said. "Mr. Bush we trust your judgment and ability to deal with the threat from Iraq and we give you a free hand to do so." The wording was very clever on the part of the Neocons and provided them a stick to beat up on anyone who voted yes in subsequent elections. On the other hand Obama did not vote to keep troops anywhere. What he did vote for was money to support the troops who were already in place. From what I have seen of Obama, I can't imagine him voting to give someone like Bush a free hand. As a Constitutional law professor. I can't imagine him giving the President powers like that without an open declaration of war. The difference between Hillary and Obama is subtle but it is very clear. It has nothing to do with policy. It is a fundamental and clear difference in approach. Obama puts forth his positions clearly and invites debate and input from all sides. Hillary keeps her cards hidden and plays them only when she is forced to. Obama's approach is much more likely to get the important things done. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:33 PM (#2300481) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Riginslinger What Machiavelli was describing the political process in his day the way it had been presented to him. Nothing much has changed. Obama, for instance, didn't say anything about Reverend Wright until the news media made an issue of it. Then he tried to dance around it. He's keeping his dancing shoes on now, because the Rezko trial is scheduled to start up again on Monday. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM (#2300483) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Ebbie Rigs, it is interesting how different one's perceptions can be. I would never have said that Obama 'danced around' the subject but rather that he defined the subject and outlined his own beliefs on the matter. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM (#2300484) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos HE didn't dance at all, Rig. And if you bothered to listen to what he DID say, you would have realized that what he did do was state that the statements Mister Wright made that were made into a controversy were inappropriate, and that they were out of context. These are both true statements. If you had bothered to see the whole context of the statements it would be immediately obvious that the whole crap-fest was artificially generated by the very trick of lifting from their context and leaving out 90% of the information in order to make the loops from Fox look awful and frightening. Buying this sort of campaign dirty tricks is a mild form of idiocy, in my opinion--at least that's how I remonstrate with myself when I do it. It is being suckered in by used-car salesman maneuvers. We should know better. A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 02:49 PM (#2300491) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor Ebbie, How about some discussion on cognitive dissonance? I don't think gender has a huge role in political feelings or discussions. I much prefer to consider the quality of the person's character. I thought Hillary was just fine before she started tearing Obama and the Democratic Party down rather than building herself up. And I would have had less problem with that if she had had a better chance of winning. But as it has played out it seems to me to have been a very poor decision tactically and frankly, I expected better from the Clintons. Before Texas/Ohio, the race between them was hard fought, and except for some poor judgment from Bill in South Carolina, pretty clean. Then Hillary came up with the 3 AM add. and started saying that She and McCain were experienced enough and Obama wasn't. This helps McCain. Then She tries to chip at Obama's base by telling Democrats they could have both and by saying that She should be on the top of the ticket because she won Ohio. But, really Ohio was really closer to a tie, the difference was about 5% of the delegates. AND she made a lie of her experience argument because if she is saying that Obama is qualified to be VP then obviously. There is huge cognitive dissonance between the two positions. Again McCain is helped. Her people demand that Samantha Power resigns. Then she keeps Ferraro around to play the race card for a week. Then Bill Clinton says that none of them should be fired. "thats politics" I call that hypocracy, but some might call it cognitive dissonance. Hillary said that the election in Michigan would not count. Now she is squawking about people being disenfranchised. Cognitive dissonance? Hypocracy? either way, Advantage McCain, especially in Michigan and Florida. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 03:00 PM (#2300498) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos Another odd piece of dissonance is the argument that the Democratic Party is "disenfranchising" the popular voters of FL and MI; but that the delegates and superdelegates must be independent of the popular vote. Which sounds like ignoring the will of the voters (or, disenfranchising them) to me. Besides which, since the primaries are run by the party organizations, it is a far fetch to consider them part of the core "franchise" of citizens to vote. There is no reason an individual can't vote in the election that IS part of that franchise, the national presidential election. (I may regret this remark in a day or two...). ;) A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 03:59 PM (#2300547) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Well thanks Jack, Amos & Ebbie, for doing such a stellar job of exemplifying EXACTLY what I was talking about in my opening post. The TRUTH is, all of the candidates for president have supported Bush policy, and their voting records PROVE that. Yet, for some reason, there is this cognitive dissonance, now that there are no more true anti-war candidates in the race. None. Clinton is NOT an anti-war candidate. Obama is NOT an anti-war candidate. An anti-war candidate would simply state they would end the war within days of taking office, by beginning an immediate withdrawal of troops. Either that happens, or we have the Bush/McCain Hundred Years War doctrine taken up by whichever of the two Democratic candidates wins. Regardless of who wins, you have NO candidates staking a clear, unequivocal claim that they will end this war NO MATTER WHAT, and bring all US troops home. Those are the facts. Yet, so many posters here will come into the thread and say, but Clinton says this or Obama never said that... You have pulled the wool over your own eyes. PLEASE read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts", a book about this very dynamic. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 04:37 PM (#2300572) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos Gigi: The only qualifications I hav heard Barack use are "safe and responsible" withdrawal. Which of those terms do you think is unacceptable? Or do you just distruct him to cleave to that standard? A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 04:42 PM (#2300575) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Both are unacceptable, and I believe he is lying to the American public in order to be elected president of the US. Do you have ironclad proof to the contrary? His "official position" is a smokescreen, being used tactically so Obama doesn't have to tell the American public what his TRUE intentions are. PURE OBFUSCATION. He has been doing plenty of saber rattling, especially regarding Afghanistan, and in light of his remarks in the past 2 weeks alongside the upswing in violence in Iraq. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 05:13 PM (#2300595) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest tsk tsk tsk, blocking my access to the forum again, are we Mducat Elves for Obama? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM (#2300611) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor Cognitive dissonance is a post on this forum saying that one is being blocked from the forum. GG face it. You talk like a raving looney. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 05:39 PM (#2300618) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Thanks, Jack. Coming from the likes of you, I take that as a great compliment. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM (#2300645) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Ebbie Talk about dissonance, cognitive or otherwise. GG, if the day arrives that a new president withdraws all the troops from Iraq - or Afghanistan, for that matter - with no regard for their safety or for the lives of Iraqis, who would be the first one to deplore, and with great venom, the action? You. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM (#2300649) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Peace ". . . being used tactically so Obama doesn't have to tell the American public what his TRUE intentions are." None of the candidates can do that. Well, maybe they can, but for sure they won't. It's about votes. For all of them. McCain, Clinton and Obama. Simple, really. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 06:59 PM (#2300668) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos Responsibility is unacceptable,. Safety is unacceptable., Complying with Gigi's perfervid imagination of how things should be -- priceless! A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM (#2300675) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos What he's like personally. A |
|
29 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM (#2300676) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest I agree 100%, Peace. However, it isn't me having trouble admitting that. It is the koolaid drinkers. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:12 PM (#2300716) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest So, Obamamaniacs, let me ask you this. Can Obama do no wrong? Is he always right? And are all of you absolutely convinced, 100%, of the rightness of your cause, shilling for Obama? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:16 PM (#2300717) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest From Scientific American: Many psychological studies show that on average, each of us believes we are above average compared with others—more ethical and capable, better drivers, better judges of character, and more attractive. Our weaknesses are, of course, irrelevant. Such self distortion protects our egos from harm, even when nothing could be further from the truth. Our brains are the trusted advisers we should never trust. This "distorting prism" of self-knowledge is what Cordelia Fine, a psychologist at the Australian National University, calls our "vain brain." Fine documents the lengths to which a human brain will go to bias perceptions in the perceiver's favor. When explaining to ourselves and others why something has gone well or badly, we attribute success to our own qualities, while shedding responsibility for failure. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM (#2300718) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Peace Artist: Ochs Phil Song: There But for Fortune Album: There But for Fortune Phil Ochs Sheet Music Phil Ochs CDs Show me a prison, show me a jail Show me a pris'ner whose face has grown pale And I'll show you a young man With many reasons why There but for fortune, go you or I Show me an alley, show me a train Show me a hobo who sleeps out in the rain And I'll show you a young man With many reasons why There but for fortune, go you or I Show me the whiskey stains on the floor Show me a drunk as he stumbles out the door And I'll show you a young man With many reasons why There but for fortune, go you or I Show me a country where the bombs had to fall Show me the ruins of buildings so tall And I'll show you a young land With many reasons why There but for fortune, go you or I You or I |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:39 PM (#2300729) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: McGrath of Harlow "Mr. Bush we trust your judgment and ability " Anyone who could actually believe that is clearly so detached from reality that they have no business in public life. ...................... An anti-war candidate would simply state they would end the war within days of taking office, by beginning an immediate withdrawal of troops. But the crucial thing isn't ever what they say, its what they actually do. There've been plenty of cases of politicians going back on those kind of promises after being elected - and some cases the other way, where a candidate elected on the understanding they would continue a war have promptly set about ending it after being elected. (De Gaulle in Algeria is one case in point.) A wise politician in the present war would set about withdrawing regardless of what they might have said in the election as part of their attempt to get elected. (Machiavelli would have understood this.) |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:42 PM (#2300731) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Peace The difference between employing a rubber and employing an abortionist is timing. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 08:56 PM (#2300736) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest No, there is a far bigger disconnect among posters here. None of them can wrap their head around the fact there are US citizens who believe voting for a new regime to take over from the current criminal regime, will change nothing. Why? Because they refuse to believe "their team" is part of the criminal syndicate called the US government. That is what many people who don't play the two party duopoly game believe, yet posters here refuse to accept. That isn't my problem. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:00 PM (#2300738) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Riginslinger Gg - I think there are a number of people posting here who dislike the constraints of the two party duopoly. Do you have any suggestions as to what they can do about it? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:10 PM (#2300744) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Non-cooperation, just like Gandhi and King preached. And yes, that includes choosing not to participate in a corrupt voting system, to prop up corrupt US regimes of the two party duopoly system of American imperialism. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:12 PM (#2300746) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Riginslinger It seems to me like, if a large number of people refuse to participate in the American voting system, the majority of voters, no matter how small, would still elect all of the officials. |
|
29 Mar 08 - 09:23 PM (#2300753) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest And that is the one and only possible outcome of mass refusal to take part in the US elections? Nothing else would happen, then? |
|
29 Mar 08 - 10:49 PM (#2300801) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos Funny -- the numbers of people turning out to participate in elections is hitting record highs. I see this as a positive sign, in my blindered, Kool Aid drinking mindset. For decades we had mass resignation and indifference to the election process. You could check the statistics but they were pathetic as a per centage of eligible voters. I remember several articles over years apart bemoaning the apathy of the voting public. So, I would offer that we have tried that approach, and it didn't do much good. A |
|
30 Mar 08 - 12:11 AM (#2300845) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest Record highs, and yet, only roughly half of all eligible voters. Now, that is hope. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 12:27 AM (#2300851) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: number 6 some good points posted by GG here .... there is still an uneasy feeling I get when stepping back and taking a long look at the 3 candidates ... if I was an American could my conscious allow me to cast a vote .... I dunno ... maybe it's the collateral damage to my trust in politicians inflicted upon me by the Bush machine ... Bush maybe leaving but the machine remains. biLL |
|
30 Mar 08 - 12:32 AM (#2300853) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor Bush leaving office will change the situation drastically, both domestically and internationally. McCain would be a dramatic change. So would Hillary, but in a different direction. Obama would be a big change. All three of them would draw down the troops. McCain would do it Because the current troop levels are not sustainable. He would at least have to give the troops a year or so of rest. Hillary would do it because she knows that the "surge" was a political trick by Bush so that he can put a plaque in his library saying that he didn't lose the war and in fact he was "winning" before those soft Democrats "surrendered to terror." Obama will take recon Marines, Rangers and Special Forces out of Iraq and redeploy them into Eastern Afghanistan to hunt Osama Bin Laden. This will give the Bush family conniptions because Osama is the younger brother of their close family friends. Whatever happens, next year this time there will be tens of thousands fewer US troops in Iraq. You can bank on it. You can bank on it because after the election the only two individuals on Earth could benefit from the high troop levels, Bush and Cheney and after the inauguration of the next President, when they have someone else to blame for the withdrawl, even they won't want so many troops in Iraq. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 12:34 AM (#2300854) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Jack the Sailor i meant to say that Obama would be a BIGGER change. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 08:39 AM (#2300992) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest number6, nice to know someone gets what I'm talking about. Being perpetually surrounded by the koolaid drinkers here in the US, with this "a little too enthusiastic" sort of enthusiasm, is a very disturbing trend among duopolists here in the US in the post-Newt era. And anytime people can't see and admit to flaws in their candidate of choice, I'm highly suspicious. Politics is no place for koolaid drinking cheerleaders, yet...there is just this sort of tendency in American politics to make it just like the student council election in high school again every four years. A popularity contest. Yet vehemently (and boy, do I mean vehemently) denying that aspect of how people make their choices of candidates. This election is an excellent example of how the American people go about picking their "favorite". Obama is the BMOC, and Clinton is the smart girl who just isn't very well liked by the boys. Creepy. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:40 AM (#2301071) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: JohnInKansas Bush leaving office will change the situation drastically ?? Did you mean "Cheney?" John |
|
30 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM (#2301076) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: GUEST,Guest I'm still stuck on how exactly Bush leaving office will change *anything*. One thing I do know about the nature of elections and their inability to change much of anything: "well organized ignorance often passes for wisdom." |
|
30 Mar 08 - 12:20 PM (#2301131) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Amos Well, when he leaves, we won't have him to kick around anymore. Unless he starts picking up beagles by their ears, or shooting friends in the face. A |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:20 PM (#2301421) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Peace Little will change when Bush goes from office because he will then leave behind eight years of horrebel/horibble/horribel/ bad administration of the country. Perhaps things will begin to change when his Constitutional meddling has been fixed up and his Executive Orders rescinded. Until that time, w'all gonna have SSDD regardless of who's in there. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM (#2301451) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: dick greenhaus GG- Back in the day, the answer to "Love it or leave it" was "love it and make it better". If you really don't think there's any way to make it better, leaving would seem to be the obvious option. |
|
30 Mar 08 - 05:51 PM (#2301454) Subject: RE: BS: Politics and Cognitive Dissonance From: Bobert Well, first of all, voting money for the military is not exactly a ringing endorsement or support for the war... Unless, of course, one is suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" in which case it can be overlooked... Secondly, the US's largest foriegn policy problem is Iraq and "staying the course" is not acceptable... One of 3 people will be the next president... McCain all but promises to stay in Iarq until A,B,C 'n D area ccomplished... This is exactly what Bush has been saying for 5 years... So McCian is out!!! Clinton voted to authoruize the war in the first place and refuses to say that she was wrong in doing that... She has voted for everything that Bush has asked and offers little in the way of a time-table fopr withdrawing troops... So Clinton is out!!! Obama spoke out forcefully against the authorization to go to war and says that he will start bringing troops out of Iraq 30 days into his presidency... Hmmmmmmm??? Unless there is a yet-to-be-identified potential presidential candadte this is the current situation... Face it folks, Dennis Kucinich ain't one of the choices... Too bad, but he ain't... When I look at these three candidates I'll admit that there is always the "crap shoot" factor... I mean, McCain could get elected and pull the troops out in 6 months and Obama could nuke Pakistan... But when I go to the horse races I like to go down to the paddock and check out the candidates for temperment and the little things that are a tad on the gross side to talk about... This is where we are, folks, in this race... I've been to the paddock and Obama looks and sounds to have the temperment to get lead US out of Bush's hell-hole... For folks to ***proclain*** that he doesn't is nuthing but bluster and dogma... If they like someopne else, fine, vote for that someone else... Ain't the end of the friggin' world... But to ***proclaim*** that Obama is some kinda fraud, frankly, makes them look to be bogged down in dogma-ville and rather, ahhhhh, childish... B~ |