Mitt needs a page bump.

Michigan, will be make or break. 

Being a conservative, he may not have impressed any autoworkers and related labor associated with auto. 

He is a conservative. 

A true conservative 

A real conservative 

Always a conservative

True red white and blue conservative.

And paid cash for a Harvard education, Like a true Conservative. 

-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 19th of February 2012 09:31:29 PM

I guess it isn't a done deal after all.

I think these losses hurt Romney, but not as much as Gingrich. I look at Santorum as this weeks Gingrich. I don't see him winning the nom, just a way for Romney to "get it" that the conservatives want anyone, but you. However, when it comes to Super Tuesday, he will be the nom.

Ohio, VA, AK, Idaho, Mass., Washington are not going to give Santorum a win. Maybe the southern states like GA, TN, will go Santorum, but with Maine, AZ and Wisc being held before that, Santorum will lose ground. Santorum has a niche, but that is just conservatives.

I heard on Kilmead and Friends this a.m. a Catholic Conservative from Wisc. and I thought she was exactly like me. She is supporting Romney because she believes Santorum is not electable from the I's perspective, and to beat Obama you must win the I's. That is exactly how I feel about Santorum and Gingrich, my personal values take a back seat because they are personal, and in an area I don't believe the govt belongs. 

I don't believe I want a President that places govt into my personal decisions.  I think Santorum and Gingrich would.

 

Haha, hoho, hehe...

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share.

http://news.investors.com/Article/599002/201201260818/obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes.htm

I try to avoid generalizations.  They tend to bite me in the end.

Too bad James Carville has generalized to this extent.  You would think marrying a Republican would prove that he is capable of understanding they aren't all the Boogeyman.

But whatever.  

He's a psychologist, with opinions like everyone else. It's not science.

"Science" is a method of inquiry. Haidt's studies are definitely science. Read them. You'll see.

Or, keep your head in the sand and stay in denial.

Your choice, I suppose.

"We raise our children by the golden rule, and don't understand Republicans who boo it.

We salute gay soldiers and don't understand Republicans who boo them.
We hear about someone who's sick and lacks health insurance, and we pray, "Let him live," and don't understand Republicans who yell, "Let him die!"

What self-serving garbage. We are so serene and caring, and just don't understand those evil uncaring Republicans. What absolute, arrogant silliness. Let's misinterpret or generalize the actions of a few, and attribute it to those selfish Republicans who don't raise their children by the golden rule. It sounds to me like the "golden rule" he is referring to, is "if it's brown, flush it down. If it's yellow, let it mellow."

I am so sick of exaggeration, silliness and politics.

Winchester - you either are Jonathan Haidt or you have an obsession with his opinions. He's a psychologist, with opinions like everyone else. It's not science.

yes i know that Mr practices good tithing. That still leaves Millions of spendable income.

Others can speak for themselves, but as far as I'm concerned, the main thing Democrats don't understand about GOP supporters is that they are inclined to, and will even fight to, put personal freedom, their God (if believers), and their right to raise their children as they please before any forced allegience to the dictates of the State.

As for his comments on Gingrich, I pretty much agree with them.

 

James Carville Paul Begala are exactly right. Democrats (i.e., liberals) in fact do not understand Republicans (i.e., conservatives.)

But the converse is NOT true. Conservatives DO understand liberals. Studies prove it. (Synopsis provided below, along with a link to a detailed description of the research by its author).

The reason for this dichotomy is in the psychologies of conservatism and liberalism. For that matter, the psychologies behind conservatism and liberalism explain the views of the two sides on just about everything.

Humans are very individualistic and very tribal at the same time. We love autonomy, but our survival and well being is dependent upon our ability to cooperate with each other to form large groups, or societies, for the benefit of every member. We’re like bees in a hive, where the health of each bee is dependent upon the overall health of the whole hive. This has been true for so long that natural selection has made it an integral part of our internal wiring.

Evolution operates at two levels: individual and group. That is, it not only favors behaviors that benefit the individual, it also favors behaviors that help humans form groups. Evolution has placed into the deepest reaches of our brains six psychological predispositions, or foundations which make it easy for us to recognize and learn certain types of social behaviors and hard to learn others. Three of these predispositions are geared toward the individualist in us, and three are geared toward our need to cooperate for our mutual benefit. The three which are focused on the individual are care/harm, fairness/cheating, and liberty/oppression. These are known as the “individualizing” foundations. The three which are focused more on the community are loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. These are the “binding” foundations; the tools we use to form cooperative societies out of multiple individuals for the mutual safety, security, health, and well being of each member of the group.

These foundations are tools, and like any tool each can be used to do harm or to do good. Human society flourishes best when the individualizing and binding tools “check and balance” each other so that no single tool or group of tools is allowed to “run amok,” and cause harm. Societies which are balanced in this way do the best job of protecting the weak, like in “The Milwaukee Theme Park” from “The Mike Romano Story” I talked about in another post elsewhere on this board.

The foundations are the building blocks of our sense of right and wrong; of morality. They are the color receptors of our moral eye, the building blocks of what we believe the world is and should be, and the logical constructs we use to defend and advance our beliefs. Since all six foundations result from natural selection it follows that the default human morality would be the one which uses all six foundations in equal balance. And indeed, studies conducted in all corners of the globe show this to be the case. Most of the moral systems of the world are made up of all six foundations in roughly equal balance.

The existence of the six foundations, or predispositions, to learn certain behaviors, does not guarantee that we will, in fact, learn them. That is, even though it is in our nature to use all six foundations, all six must be nurtured as we mature if they are to become part of our sense of right and wrong; our morality. Humans learn their morality from the culture and the people which surround them. This is called “enculturation.” The question of nature vs. nurture applies to morality just as it applies to many other characteristics of human behaviors and personalities.

There’s an old proverb which says “When there’s food on the table there are many problems. When there is no food on the table there is only one problem.” The six foundations in equal balance put food on the table. Together, they provide society - the individuals at the table - the quality of life and the luxury – now that their basic needs are met – of looking at the world around them and seeing the “many problems.” In societies where there’s “food on the table” the “binding” foundations appear to become less important, the “individualizing foundations begin to take precedence, and people begin to “see” inequalities, like income, among the individuals. People become enculturated to focus less on the binding foundations and more on the individualizing ones. This is how liberalism develops.

Liberal morality is made up of only the three individualizing foundations. It not only rejects the binding foundations, it interprets most ideas which result from them as bad, seeing them as tools of oppression against the individual, and therefore immoral. Liberal morality is that which seeks to care for and protect the individual, and seeks to maximize the individual’s autonomy. (See practically any liberal bumper sticker.) Liberal morality tends to see no need for group identity. It tends to see only one big brotherhood of man. It generally seeks to reduce or eliminate any and all things it sees as “dividing” us into groups, or is otherwise “oppressive” to individuals. Liberal morality boils down to 1) protecting the “little guy” against “the rich,” where “the rich,” – or “the one percent” - is a euphemism, or a metaphor, more or less representing anything and everything which “divides” us or separates us into groups, and 2) removing, or at least reducing, the effects of any and all such “artificial” social constructs (like income, race, religion, power, and even ideas).

Conservative morality also sees the individualizing foundations as important, but it sees the binding foundations as equally important. Conservatism is the morality of all six foundations in equal balance. It is the morality of our founding, and the British Tradition of freedom and equality from which it grew. It is the morality of trade-offs, of the search for the sweet spot in the balance between the individual’s desire for total autonomy, and the necessity to place some restrictions on that autonomy for the mutual benefit of everyone. Conservatism embraces all of the individualizing foundations of liberalism (i.e., care, fairness, and liberty) in equal balance with the binding foundations (i.e., loyalty, authority, and sanctity). (See practically any conservative bumper sticker.) Conservative morality is that which looks after the bees AND the hive, because without a healthy hive the bees cannot possibly thrive.

This basic dichotomy of moralities underlies practically every issue that divides us politically, including the current topic of income inequality and redistribution of said income via taxes. And if you listen closely you can hear this dichotomy playing out in practically every political discussion you might come across.

Liberals see the binding foundations as external to what is considered to be “moral.” The three binding foundations are not part of the moral universe of the liberal psyche. To many liberals, those foundations and anything which is built upon them are, for all practical purposes, immoral. Liberals therefore have a hard time fathoming the motivations and thought processes of conservatives, and are left with practically no conclusion to draw about conservatism other than to ascribe it to some sort of mental or psychological dysfunction like absence of empathy, hunger for power, desire to oppress the “little guy,” racism, or some other form of bigotry.

Conservatives, on the other hand, use all six of the color receptors of the moral eye. Conservatives “see” the full spectrum of human nature. To conservatives, discussing political issues with liberals feels a little bit like discussing the virtues of impressionistic art (e.g., Monet, Renoir, etc.) with a person who is color blind. How can a person ever appreciate a painting, or human nature, if that person is blind to half the spectrum?

And in fact, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, this is exactly why conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives. In studies where liberals are asked to answer questions as they think conservatives would answer them, and conservatives are asked to answer questions as they think liberals would answer them, conservatives consistently perform much better.

The studies are described starting with the second paragraph of page 14 of the paper in this link.

If that link doesn't work, the paper entitled "Planet of the Durkheimians, Where Community, Authority, and Sacredness are Foundations of Morality" and it is available here.

The two moralities are not different but equivalent. The two moralities do not describe the two ends of the rope of the tug-of-war to find the proper balance between autonomy and community.

The problem is that liberalism “forgets” the value of the binding foundations. It fails to incorporate them not only in its perception of the world, but also into its vision for the world, and importantly, into its thought processes and arguments in defense of its world view. Liberalism is, essentially, the three individualizing foundations run amok, without the checks and balances of the three binding foundations. When moral foundations are allowed to hold sway in this way, they tend to become tools of harm. The good intentions of the liberal world view, no matter how well intentioned and heartfelt, when allowed to dominate, in the long run end up doing more harm than good.

It’s called “Pathological Altruism.”

Pathological altruism is described by Barbara Oakley in her book of the same title. Oakley “argues that this instinct for altruism can sometimes work against us. It enables codependent relationships and genocide. It allows sinister motives to slip under our noses.” Oakley, who has a PhD in systems engineering, says that “this type of training has helped me to avoid the blinkers of someone with conventional training in psychology. I don’t think the “bible” of psychologists—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has all the answers. In fact, I don’t even think it offers up the right questions.” Oakley says:
Altruism is very nearly a secular religion in today’s society. It’s been put on this pedestal of unquestioned sanctity. But altruism has tradeoffs, just like any engineering process. And it is also great cover for the more nefarious among us. … Sometimes something that seems altruistic on the face of it can actually worsen the very situation you mean to help. This happens far more often than we might like.
…
In the United States, we’ve gone so overboard with a one-dimensional idea that altruism is always good that it is creating real problems for society. For example, an ideology has evolved among certain well-meaning people that business is always predatory, and academia and unions are always on the right side in helping people. But can we afford to have unions that block reform in places like Detroit, where only 25% of students graduate from high school? Or unions that force taxpayers to pay millions to try to get rid of proven child molestors and absurdly incompetent teachers? The state of Georgia is turning out to be the Enron of K-12 education. From my personal experience here in Michigan working with corrupt K-12 school systems, Georgia is just the tip of the iceberg.

The reality is that unions and academics can be, and often are, as predatory and self-serving as businesses. Yet they fly under our radar, because they pretend to serve “the people” instead of just their constituents—and themselves. I’m reminded of Jimmy Hoffa, who inserted into his union’s contract that he had to receive his million dollar salary even when he was in prison. Hoffa was a grifter who got away with his con on a massive scale because he said he was helping people.

In many places, public unions are bankrupting cities and states. It sounds great to pay people commensurate with their skills. But the reality is, policies that sound wonderfully altruistic are often simply Ponzi schemes. We’re turning into a large scale version of Greece, where people can claim big bucks by being seen as victims. And anyone who contradicts this is labeled a bad guy. But in the long run, all of society suffers as the economy sinks into a depression.

http://trendingsideways.com/index.php/barbara-oakley-thinks-altruism-can-work-against-us/

”I have come to believe,” she explains, “that, for my fellow liberals, empathy, altruism and caring for others have become a kind of secular religion that is actually harmful, because it can be used as a cover for nefarious, corrupt and self-serving action. People can be blinded by their caring into doing things that hurt those they hope to help.”
…
Oakley suggests that we hear rather too much about the self-serving nature of corporations, given that “many other organizations behave in precisely the same way.

“Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation. It’s interested in its constituents. Well-meaning feminists are often trained only to see a certain way, only to support their constituents. That is partly what underlies the spurious research on battered-woman syndrome. Anyone who questions whether battered women are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified.

“There are young, inexperienced women who fall in love with a man and are put in a battering situation, but there is nothing wrong with them more than simple bad luck. That’s absolutely possible and my heart goes out to them. But there’s also a sizeable group – perhaps 40 to 50 per cent of battered women – who are themselves as much involved in the battering as the man. That simply isn’t discussed; it’s considered to be ‘blaming the victim’. But in fact it’s being more perceptive about the difference between real victims and those who portray themselves as victims.

“We need to take off the ideological blinders if we are to forge the intelligent interventions that can make a dramatic difference in these women’s lives. We need more scientifically based research in this area to help tease out what is actually going on.” http://www.barbaraoakley.com/files/Oakley_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement.pdf

Oakley’s analysis is spot on, and it applies to many more issues than feminism, or unions.

Like income inequality.

Since the morality of liberalism “sees” only the individualizing half of the full spectrum of human nature it tends to perceive and interpret everything in the world in the black and white terms of the individual “little guy” as the permanent “victim” of the big powerful oppressors. Any inequality at all, any human inequity, as Barbara Oakley describes, can only be because the “weak” or the “powerless” have been “oppressed” or otherwise taken advantage of by “the rich,” and “Anyone who questions whether battered [poor, or 99 percent] are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified.” This is the standard liberal meme that we see behind practically every liberal position, no matter the issue. Liberalism is, for all practical purposes, the definition of pathological altruism.

The financial problems the world faces today have nothing to do with income inequality, or insufficient taxes on “the rich.” The problems are not due to a lack of government revenue. We could tax all the wealth in the country and it would still not make a dent in the budget deficit or the public debt. Focusing on taxing the rich and on income inequality is focusing on the wrong side of the problem.

The real problem is the pathology of government hyper-spending in the name of altruism. The problem is that the three-foundation morality has been allowed to run amok. The problem is the single-minded fixation on “protecting the little guy” at all costs, even if the cost is the destruction of the larger society in which all the little guys live.

The problem is the “forest and the trees” phenomenon I’ve talked about elsewhere in this board. The liberal fixation on the individual (i.e., the trees), and its blind spot toward the binding foundations and the greater good of, and by, the community which results from them (i.e., the forest), causes a pathological altruism which, in the short term, scratches the liberal itch of protecting the “little guy” but in the long term does more net harm than good to us all, in the form of, among other things, the massive debts and deficits we face today. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions.


-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 25th of January 2012 04:32:09 PM

So, longprime: enlighten us all as to exactly how much money people should be "allowed" to make? And how should that money be distributed to those who are not so successful?

"The Dems do claim to be the party of the LGBT community, and they don't do anything to support them."

The repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell did nothing to support the LGBT community? If that's true, what was all the Conservative ruckus about over the that action?

I told you so.

Told you to come clean.

I also think that many SC'ers are beginning to understand their paychecks.

"Adulterer hasn't stopped the Dems from praising Clinton, so I don't think that is a deal breaker."

The democratic party has not advertised itself as the party of "family values"

So the Republicans have a choice between a business crook, an adulter or a religious fanatic.  Maybe they should try to recruit Tebow in the off season.  He seems to be a better fit for the Republican "intelligentsia"

He will be ripped to pieces in the general election because he will be viewed as a greedy corporate raider plain and simple.

Yeah and Obama and his cronies are bleeding heart liberals who are intent on driving the country into the ground in the name of "social justice."

We can all look forward to some interesting debates.

He will be ripped to pieces in the general election because he will be viewed as a greedy corporate raider plain and simple.

Hopefully Romney will change his tune if he becomes president.  We don't need a CEO - corporate raider type as president.  As far as repealing Obamacare, he'll do that the same way Obama let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I don't trust the guy. He will do a switcharoo on the R's.

I've got lots of complaints about the President, but out of a combination of concerns about human rights, social justice and self interest, in that I am a woman and the mother of a daughter, I will work hard to re-elect the President.

Don't underestimate the anger of (ignorant, uninformed) everyday people like me being forced to do "what's good for society and/or themselves" by arrogant bureaucrats (or whatever you are) such as yourself.

You  may just be surprised at the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

On a side note: if you truly believe Obama is even half as smart as he pretends to be, you're not even half as bright as you think you are.

It kills me that in your make believe world, all those legions of statistically undereducated folk who vote knee-jerk liberal are somehow magically endowed with superior intelligence.

Judging by all the posts I have read of yours since I've been on here, i doubt you have the insight to realize how absurd your continuing pronouncemenets that conservatives are the only ones falling prey to "propaganda" and "fear mongering" are.

 

 

 

 

 

-- Edited by hope on Sunday 15th of January 2012 04:16:25 PM

-- Edited by hope on Sunday 15th of January 2012 04:17:51 PM

I really can't articulate how much I feel like throwing up right now.

A lot of people feel they are having something forced upon them that they do not want, and we feel totally boxed in.

The smug superiority inherent in your posts is infuriating, but I will concede to your vast knowledge of the legislation/regulations.

Have a nice day!

 

"Obama is considering them" ?

Do you mean Congress? I mean, if we are going to pretend anyone (including doctors) who oppose ObamaCare is ignorant of "civics," then let's be consistent at least and admit that Obama can't "fight for me"without Congress either. What a crock.

As if O has the slightest understanding of what he is reading off his teleprompter half the time.