What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
93 Comments
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36you say that, but really most republicans I know think amoral and lazy citizens are to blame for everything. Republicans hate big government when its providing health services and financial support to their fellow citizens, but like big government when its telling people how to live their lives.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34So when can we as Americans be persuaded to vote for the individual, and not the party??
- bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39the most ridiculous things about the partisanship is that most people agree in the middle about nearly everything. The parties want you to think that we are in a political battle because they want to be in power. Bush is not from the South, he was born in the north and went to school in the north. Yet republicans rally southerners to vote for them by declaring that they give a ***** about the southern people, which they don't. Republicans in ideology want a smaller government, which means less payout and support for the agriculturally based south and west, so obviously it is not in southerners interest to vote for politicians which don't support them right? well thats why this whole bi-partisanship is ***** tactic to put people at odds with one another while the politicians squander the country broke.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Yes, Psychology Today, well known for its propaganda wing.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Anecdotally I have found this to be surprisingly true and I came to the same conclusion awhile ago. I have many stories but one consists of the time I took a conservative family member to a classical piano performance. The entire time she was nervous, wondering what she should wear, asking if what she was wearing was OK, talked to the people next to her nervously, asking dumb questions about their lives, chit chatting a bit too much. It's like the arts, foreign culture, foreign languages and "high brow" activities scare them and they crawl into their stable conservative christian cave rather than face what the world has to offer. Almost like they're ashamed of not stepping outside their shell so they crawl into their shell even more. I think the extreme left types who are not consistent and don't listen to reason have arrogant 'crybaby' everyone else is wrong except for me attitudes, often finding themselves constantly in conflict with 'the man'.. ie their boss, the home owner's association, etc etc. Rather than find solutions they prefer to annoy everyone with their whining.
If you are more circumspect then you will find yourself somewhere in the middle. - skywake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@alllie
a "fence sitter" is more likely to vote based on current merits or a party/politician
in the end they are all politicians... what kind of idiot takes sides when everyone is bending the truth? - haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Man, don't you ever read comic books? It is always the ones who were beat up and picked on that get angry, vow revenge, and turn into the villains (usually by becoming rich or by becoming a mad scientist-type). Just goes to show that comic book writers would have made good psychologists.
- Accutron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The actual, complete article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=1 - AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The real difference between Republicans and Democrats:
Democrats blow. Republicans suck. - Lewis Black
"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the speed with which their knees hit the ground when the corporations come knocking." - Ralph Nader - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@blapierre
Oh, I forgot about a defense from a partisan think tank. Of course they like the electoral college.
You need to re-phrase your reply to: It requires candidates to have REASONABLE country wide support AND be from one of the two major parties.
Currently, the only risk from a third party is as a spoiler. It's my contention that half of the partisan crap we're dealing with right now wouldn't exist if we'd axed the electoral college long ago. It would be much more difficult to concentrate power, especially from corporate interests.
As for more on the "It requires candidates to have country wide support." When is a plurality system vote not likely to provide the same outcome? Oh yeah, right, when there's more than two competitive parties. Flip that idea on it's head and you see an electoral college will likely produce a two party system. Although it's far-fetched (requires 3 or more parties), in an electoral college the majority vote getter could actually receive NO electoral college votes.
We have enough technology to create a plurality system without fraud. You just need to add some statistical checks to flag anomalies.
- Brutusfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The cure for ALL of this two party garbage is some kind of instant runoff voting. NOTHING in our election system will work right when a vote for any-ones favorite candidate can count against their next favorite candidate. It would open the whole system up and give other parties and independents a fair shot. It's logical, scientific, and never going to happen unless we demand it.
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11hmm, insecure and defensive. maybe they are onto something afterall.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15You would think that would be true, but it doesn't seem to work out that way.
It seems meek little ***** grow up to be republicans. Probably so they can blame all of their failures in life on the mexicans. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Can we start by scraping the two party system? Junk the electoral college and it won't be so easy for politicians to play the masses. Americans are easily played by the current system; always convinced you can't reach common ground due to all the partisanship. Toss in a few more parties and stuff will start getting done. Politicians would become more accountable and learn to compromise for the greater good...or get fired by the voters.
- haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Is that based on a study that you were involved in, so you know conclusive results and can back up what you are saying with evidence?
Or is your opinion merely based on anecdotal evidence, and thereby completely meaningless? - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Yeah, reality has a liberal bias, dammit!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Another fine hit piece by Psychology Today.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3."
Sounds like a perfect description of my childhood. I was Republican for a long while. But I jumped ship at about 20 years old. I gave up religion too. I'm a democratic-voting atheist libertarian. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes, and this obviously represents the entire United States.
- JamesKeenan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10These aren't experiments. These studies aren't theoretical. These are statistical studies. They're essentially irrefutable, assuming they didn't *only* take samples of victimized kids from strict conservative households, and strong kids from liberal households...
I'm going to have to agree with those kooky scientists. Even if the first sampled study was biased, what about the 22,000+ patient study? And what would it say about the liberal motif if all of those scientists *were* liberal, or at least most.
Once again, it's easy to skew numbers if that's your intent. It's also easy to misread data, like the famous example of ice cream consumption and murder rates coinciding (Hint: It has to do with temperature.)
However, I do not believe this is example can be made a case of statistical tampering. These are curious, objective scientists, who weren't even studying for political behavior, it's just there. - alky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6You don't really think three entire states would band together, agree on someone, and elect them based on a "***** the other guy" platform? No way they'd all agree on one person.
- SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I became a liberal when I got out of college because I saw how high my taxes were and how little I got for them. I figure that my taxes will always be high, so I might as well get something worthwhile for them. Of course, the sheer incompetence of Bush and the Republicans before and after 9/11 didn't help.
My parents were conservative Christians. - NickMilne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If the study indicates anything, it's how much one can change during the course of "growing up." The worst excesses of conservativism have never been anything particularly concrete, tending rather towards not only confidence but brash and excessive over-confidence (jingoism, hubris, etc). Whereas, with the more extreme liberal elements, victimhood has almost been fetishized and enshrined (political correctness, "_____ is keeping me/us/you down," etc). Long-term conservative trends are towards tighter-knit homogeneous communities and larger families; long-term liberal trends are towards more diverse, mutually- and beneficially-disinterested (that is: no harm + consent = none of your business) communities and smaller families. The conservative push for unity creates a larger peer group; the liberal push for diversity a smaller one. The modern thrust of liberalism could be described as "mind your own business;" the thrust of conservativism as "look out for each other."
Such states of affairs are directly opposed to what existed in such people's youth, if this report is accurate.
It tells us other things, too. That the "conservative kids" were "insecure" apparently explains their compulsive need to validate themselves through history and tradition, lionizing the past, often foolishly. Conversely, that the "liberal kids" were "secure" with their contemporary life apparently explains their compulsive need to cynicize the past and hold it in disdain; to deride tradition and authority as antiquated tyranny. Both sides are tribalists. Both sides are invested in being right.
There is no default position. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Without the electoral college just a couple major areas could get together and elect someone who only serves them. Just a few areas could band together and rule the entire nation. Just get California, New York, and Texas and board and everyone else is screwed.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11People calling for understanding, when the party in power is bombing on one side and destroying the constitution on the other, piss me off.
I wasn't liberal until I met powerful conservatives. THEY were the best advertisement for liberalism because no sane, decent person would want to be like Cheney or his supporters. Anybody who says liberals are just as immoral isn't paying enough attention, or is deluding themselves. Some liberals are just as immoral, but their platform doesn't include pre-emptive war because we're afraid of the arabs, or torturing people in an isolation cell for 3 years without a trial, or the ability to face their accusers, or see the evidence against them, all on someone's word. - haydesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What's that? Someone that acknowledges their worldly experience is only anecdotal? Why, that might be a sign of... intelligence! :-)
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18Unfortunately, Democrats want the government to take the place of our mommy and daddy. They take our money and tell us that they know how to take care of us better than we do. Utter *****.
Liberals can sniff my ass. (And no, I'm not a Republican.) - SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm a liberal. So is my wife. Never had an abortion. We have two kids so far. All of our friends who are even more liberal and wacky than us have even more kids.
Its only the psycho lesbian feminists who have rejected any and all parenting roles who will breed themselves out of existance. - bwhancock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Things the Republicans and Democrats have in common...
1. They like to pander (see Hillary's draw; Obama linking everything back to VT; Bush talking his faith to) crowds
2. They like to spend other people's money (look at your paystub - look at everything named Stevens in Alaska or Byrd in West Virginia)
3. Once they get too much power they get paranoid (see: Vast Right Wing conspiracy; Nixon's enemy list) - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Democrats are employee friendly."
A union is anything but employer friendly. They encourage groupthink and take away the individuals rights so that union bosses can push both political and monetary agendas. All the while they are collapsing the company's with sheer cost - ala GM. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"29, wasn't it the age where you also got a brain stroke?"
More or less when you get out of college and have to start providing for yourself. Its easy to be a liberal when you are held up in the fantasy world of higher education - with professors who think they have a bearing on what the real world is. - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5learn how to read. notice the part on the top that says "Psychology Today"--that's the source.
- Depthfunction, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"The entire time she was nervous, wondering what she should wear, asking if what she was wearing was OK, talked to the people next to her nervously, asking dumb questions about their lives, chit chatting a bit too much."
Sounds like a typical female to me. - mriegger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thanks for posting that. The crooksandliars snippet was ridiculously simplistic. The full article was fascinating.
- lostinnowhere, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, no, no...There's no political slant in this article!...Yeah!,...*****!
Here's a better interpretation of the teachers observations...
Easily victimized = Didn't 100% adore teacher as being all knowledgeable
Easily offended = Saw the waste of time talking to the freaking idiot teacher
Fearful = Of course!.. At an early age they understood the problem in the educational system being over-run with liberal, left-leaning teachers
Rigid, vulnerable = I hope they investigated these teachers as possible child molesters!
The sum of it is that teachers resent any student that is not a perfect image of themselves...Who's ***** who here? It did not seem to mention that conservatives tend to turn out to be the bosses of the liberals. - Morphinity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.... I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."
- George Washington in his 1796 Farewell Address - minox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So they are saying that Republicans who grew up in Berkeley in the late 1960s were traumatized and easily offended.
- enemyofstate430, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's my analysis. If you're born completely retarded, you will probably be a Republican. If you're just stupid--Democrat.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I would tend to agree with you. It seems as if everyday is indoctrination 101 with alot of teachers pushing their own political ideology. This is where you get the difference, the more left leaning persons tend to absorb this information as total fact when indeed it is someone else opinion but since this someone else is a teacher - it must be right. Standing in contrast more right leaning students tend to argue their own points amidst jeering looks from more leftist classmates. In the education system there is only one political ideology.
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. It requires candidates to have country wide support, reduces the incentives for fraud and lots of other things.
Excellent defense of the electoral college here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm15.cfm - voltron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I can't believe this was submitted to general sciences instead of political opinion. I had been enjoying my digg for several months since filtering out the political opinion stores. Now toddcat the asshat sneaks it in again. good god.
- SharinganBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you disband the electoral college system then Sanjaya has already won.
- alexforcefive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@mdhauke
If everyone was born a liberal, then how did "reality" get to be so harsh? How did it happen? Does that mean we all innately want to be liberal? Can't we just all, y'know, do it? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That might make sense if there was any evidence that people grew more conservative as they aged, but there is not.
Of people aged 40-69, 51% consider themselves fiscally conservative and 44% socially conservative. Hardly a ringing endorsement of conservatism of from our elders.
Plus, what policy of Clinton's do you find sadistic? Man you got problems.
P.S. Clinton only worked with a democratically controlled congress for 2 out of 8 years. Learn some history! - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2most radically leftwing people i know don't whine at all; they _do_. they volunteer at food-not-bombs, go to political rallies and protests, are involved with progressive movements and generally take action rather than waste time debating with people who obviously don't care to inform themselves. it's usually the poser liberals who do it to be trendy who do the most talking and incoherent bitching. they're the people who want to appear progressive, but don't bother to invest the time to learn what needs to be changed in our society and what organizations and movements are out there that are doing these things that they can be a part of.
real progressives may publish articles/essays to disseminate information, but more importantly, they're out in the world helping the people that need help and changing the things that need to be changed through grass root movements and organizing their community into action. if you're not willing to get your hands dirty, then you're just an armchair politician. one of my roommates was like that--he acted like he hated bush because it was the trendy thing to do (and he was a very trendy guy), but he never read any political essays or kept himself informed through independent news sources. he didn't have any interest in joining the student activism groups that i tried getting him to go to with me. and if he were asked why he hated bush he'd just give some cliche response that just wouldn't convince anyone. he was also dating a girl who was a republican (and all her friends were conservatives as well). they were very much the same though. when i asked her and her friends why they supported bush, or what part of his platform did they agree with, they just stared at me blankly, talked about how ugly kerry's hair is, and one of them said that she thought bush was hot. it made me want to puke. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would indeed read the rest of the article, it takes alot of the political potency away though which is exactly what crooks and liars wanted to NOT do. Amazing though the selective editing.
Read it for yourself.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20061222-000001&page=5
For example.
"found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature."
""while the researchers themselves are liberal""
bias? Cannot be, just close your mind and keep reading. - obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Strange, I'm similar, but completely different from you:
I was "easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3."
But I became very religious and very liberal as well. So I'm a nonchurch-going (it's corrupt!) religious democratic-voting liberal. - odinfire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Fantastic... just what we needed...
Another survey backing up the idea of conservatives being "victims".
Somehow this is Clinton's fault. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to be conservative, for the war, not exactly pro bush, but I defended his ass. Then I saw Michael Moore's documentary, Bowling for Columbine. Then I was like, "wow, I'm going to be a liberal now" until I found out that most of that documentary was *****, then I briefly went back to being conservative until I realized that I can't trust anybody to tell me the truth, I have to seek it out myself. And through this and doing my own research and reading, I became liberal. My childhood had little to do with it.
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is