Why is it that . . .

[Thomas A Swift]

it appears all of the motor vehicle owners who have expressed whom they will be supporting for US President by displaying an Obama for president bumper sticker all seem to be driving foreign made cars?? While the supporters of McCain all seem to be driving US Made vehicles???

Just an observation, I travel a lot around the US and I have been noticing this trend at lot more.

[Shaggy Hiker]

What is a foreign made car? Do the Germans still ship cars to us? The Japanese generally don't.

[homer13j]

What is a foreign made car?

Good point. My dad's Toyota was built in Kentucky. His wife's Ford was built in Mexico. Which one is the foreign car?

[techgnome]

What was it Homer Simpson said? Something along the lines of: there's nothing like a German engineered car built in Mexico with parts from Canada.

-tg

[crptcblade]

I ride a horse to work. Once I get there, I shoot it, do my job, and hitch a ride home. The next day the cycle begins again.

I feel the horse is more liberal than I am. Please discuss :afrog:

[Shaggy Hiker]

I posted a reply to this, but then went out and worked on a pergola. As I was working, I got thinking about this odd post. Can somebody more conversent with multiple forums than I, determine whether or not this is a real person? The OP is a New Member with no posts, though they supposedly joined up three years ago.

However, the post is really quite interesting. Aside from the fairly explicit xenophobia implied by the post, it plays into one of the worst flaws, and greatest strengths, of the human brain. The not so subtle suggestion is that those who support Obama are less American than those who support McCain, but it does it by suggesting a pattern. I have long asserted that humans are not particularly intelligent (except when we are being creative, which is why I program). What our brains utterly dominate at is pattern recognition. Oddly, this pattern recognition power comes up in all kinds of unusual areas, such as it being demonstrated as the key behind chess mastery (and I feel no doubt that programming skill is hugely dependent on it for better AND worse, but that's a different monologue). However, our pattern recognition focus comes with a major drawback: Our brains filter out information that doesn't match the pattern. We are consciously aware of no more than a fraction of a percent of all the input that our brains process in any given day, and once a pattern has been accepted by our brains, data that supports the pattern will be enhanced, while data that contradicts the pattern will be deprecated. This phenomena is foundational in all racism, sexism, and pretty much every other ism (including conservatism and liberalism). One example is that almost every discriminatory viewpoint against another ethnic group of any sort includes the belief that the group in question smells bad. Once that belief is accepted by the brain, then members of the group that do smell bad are brought to the attention of the conscious mind, whereas good or neutral smelling members of the group are ignored.

So where am I going with this? If a bot or troll could implant a belief that Obama supporters drive foreign cars, and McCain supporters drive domestic cars, then the belief can become self sustaining. It paints a picture of the two candidates that will be supported by the complicit pattern recognition of the brain. Thus, this post, which may not have been made by an actual human, could be the 21st century version of the Willie Horton ad: Don't state an explicit position, but state an observation that could impart a pattern to susceptible brains.

[FunkyDexter]

Looks a little bottish to me. Damn those republicans with their filthy cyborg ways. McCains got an electronic heart... true fact.

[Foxer]

Don't feed the trolls.

[grilkip]

I only drive halal.

[nemaroller]

Thus, this post, which may not have been made by an actual human, could be the 21st century version of the Willie Horton ad: Don't state an explicit position, but state an observation that could impart a pattern to susceptible brains.

What's more interesting is the human brain can absorb information, then 6 months later, regurgitate it as its own.

I always maintained Jesus4U and MarkGambo were bots:
http://www.vbforums.com/showpost.php?p=3132946&postcount=28

[techgnome]

The difference is that J4U is/was a bot.... while the MG was a Turing Machine that simply thought it was human. Then again..... it has been strangely quiet in the politics section lately...

-tg

[zaza]

it appears all of the motor vehicle owners who have expressed whom they will be supporting for US President by displaying an Obama for president bumper sticker all seem to be driving foreign made cars?? While the supporters of McCain all seem to be driving US Made vehicles???

Just an observation, I travel a lot around the US and I have been noticing this trend at lot more.


Because Obama supporters look to give that little bit extra back to the rest of the world, whilst McCain supporters are insular self-serving b*****ds?

Just hazarding a guess....

[homer13j]

Because Obama supporters look to give that little bit extra back to the rest of the world

Bwahahahaha! I have heard plenty of smarmy drivel in this election season, but this one...

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/Wendys_Chili/cat_barfed.jpg

And for the record, Americans who identify themselves as Republican donate a higher percentage of their income than those who identify themselves as Democrats. The Dems love to help the poor - just not with their own money.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/15/02358.shtml?s=ic

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've heard that stat. I've always heard JUST that stat. There are so many problems with that stat it is nearly meaningless. Just one of those cases where people grab onto a statistic that helps their expectations without the context necessary to understand it. Is it meaningful? We lack sufficient information to even evaluate it.

Taken at face value, I think most people would expect it to be surprising that a party generally considered to be so morally bereft that calling yourself "compassionate" is understood to make you different from your colleagues. If compassionate was a trait of conservatives, nobody would bother calling themselves a "compassionate conservative". So why would they give more as a percentage? Could it be that democrats now include a significant percentage of underclasses that lack disposable income for charitable giving? Is it because church tithing was counted as charitable giving, thereby making the predominantly Republican LDS members appear quite charitable, though they are actually charitable in the same sense as any homeowner who contributes to a mandatory association fee?

What was the context of the question asked? What was counted as charitable giving? What was the demographics of the sample? All of these questions will skew the results. Did any of them invalidate the conclusion? How can we tell?

[homer13j]

I've heard that stat. I've always heard JUST that stat. There are so many problems with that stat it is nearly meaningless. Just one of those cases where people grab onto a statistic that helps their expectations without the context necessary to understand it. Is it meaningful? We lack sufficient information to even evaluate it.

Taken at face value, I think most people would expect it to be surprising that a party generally considered to be so morally bereft that calling yourself "compassionate" is understood to make you different from your colleagues. If compassionate was a trait of conservatives, nobody would bother calling themselves a "compassionate conservative". So why would they give more as a percentage? Could it be that democrats now include a significant percentage of underclasses that lack disposable income for charitable giving? Is it because church tithing was counted as charitable giving, thereby making the predominantly Republican LDS members appear quite charitable, though they are actually charitable in the same sense as any homeowner who contributes to a mandatory association fee?

What was the context of the question asked? What was counted as charitable giving? What was the demographics of the sample? All of these questions will skew the results. Did any of them invalidate the conclusion? How can we tell?

Ahhhh... There are few pleasures in the world greater than watching liberals squirm whenever you dare to tell the truth about them.

Allow me to translate: This can't possibly be true because after all,

McCain supporters are insular self-serving b*****ds

:D

[Xanith]

I've heard that stat. I've always heard JUST that stat. There are so many problems with that stat it is nearly meaningless. Just one of those cases where people grab onto a statistic that helps their expectations without the context necessary to understand it. Is it meaningful? We lack sufficient information to even evaluate it.

Taken at face value, I think most people would expect it to be surprising that a party generally considered to be so morally bereft that calling yourself "compassionate" is understood to make you different from your colleagues. If compassionate was a trait of conservatives, nobody would bother calling themselves a "compassionate conservative". So why would they give more as a percentage? Could it be that democrats now include a significant percentage of underclasses that lack disposable income for charitable giving? Is it because church tithing was counted as charitable giving, thereby making the predominantly Republican LDS members appear quite charitable, though they are actually charitable in the same sense as any homeowner who contributes to a mandatory association fee?

What was the context of the question asked? What was counted as charitable giving? What was the demographics of the sample? All of these questions will skew the results. Did any of them invalidate the conclusion? How can we tell?

For me it makes perfect sense due to the distinctly different philosophies about how government and charity work. For liberals they feel as if the government should be the instrument of charity and giving, taking from those who have and giving to those who don’t. While conservatives believe that charity begins at home and that it is their personal responsibility to do something about the poor and downtrodden.

From the statistics that I have read a lot of charity that comes from republicans/conservatives is from families who are not very rich to begin with. These are largely religious families who take to heart the lessons learned while at services and from the Bible.

Also churches are a huge source of charity in the US and that money comes directly from contributions. I don’t think you can say the same about any condo association (I don’t know of any shelters, food banks, or soup kitchens started by any at least). So there is no equivalence there as you attempt to imply.

The worst thing you can do for a person is to give them welfare, because it keeps a person poor and creates a cycle of dependency that lasts for generations. This is why conservatives appear “morally bereft” to liberals because they do not support such big budget government programs that on the surface appear to help people, but instead keep people poor (including future generations), make them dependant, and keep the purveyors of such programs (the democrats) in power.

You need only look at any big city in the US that has been run by democrats for decades to see exactly what I mean. Things continue to get worse yet people keep voting democrat. That is the cycle of dependency that has been created so people keep voting for more of the same failed policies.

X

[JPicasso]

The OP's point actually seems counter-intuitive to me, since the Dems are historically Labor union supporters, while Republicans generally, have sided with corporations. The big three automakers are heavily unionized and seems that union workers would be more prone to purchase a car made at their facility, or at least made in America.

But perhaps the OP's personal experiences have been different than mine.

In any case, I have to totally agree with Shaggy's point about one "person's" casual remark becoming held as the "truth" very easily, and without any real data.

oh, and Palin's a looker, no?

[kleinma]

I have owned 2 toyota's, a ford, and now an audi.


The toyotas were the only good cars I have had. THe Ford was total crap, and the audi I have now is total crap.

[capsulecorpjx]

it appears all of the motor vehicle owners who have expressed whom they will be supporting for US President by displaying an Obama for president bumper sticker all seem to be driving foreign made cars?? While the supporters of McCain all seem to be driving US Made vehicles???

Just an observation, I travel a lot around the US and I have been noticing this trend at lot more.

People who support Mccain tend to be Republican. Republicans tend to be blindly patriotic, and rely more on faith than reason. They are so patriotic that they are willing to buy horribly made American cars rather than a foriegn one.

People who support Obama is more practical, they buy foreign cars because they aren't stupid, and want something that won't break down in under 100k miles.

[Shaggy Hiker]

From the statistics that I have read a lot of charity that comes from republicans/conservatives is from families who are not very rich to begin with. These are largely religious families who take to heart the lessons learned while at services and from the Bible.

Actually, I would guess that this is true for all forms of belief. Those who buy into a me-first attitude would probably not be into donations no matter what their beliefs.


Also churches are a huge source of charity in the US and that money comes directly from contributions. I don’t think you can say the same about any condo association (I don’t know of any shelters, food banks, or soup kitchens started by any at least). So there is no equivalence there as you attempt to imply.

I didn't mention churches in general, I mentioned the only right-leaning one I am familiar with. My point there is that tithing for my example institution is about as optional as the association fees, so it has more to do with inclusion in the group rather than a personal charitable leaning. I have no idea what the standard is for any other right-leaning church, so I couldn't say anything about them.


The worst thing you can do for a person is to give them welfare, because it keeps a person poor and creates a cycle of dependency that lasts for generations.

Actually, poverty does this, too. There was a really interesting book that came out a couple years back where the authors had studied the attitudes of those who were raised in various socio-economic conditions. The attitudes regarding money are really different for the poor, middle class (whatever that is, I don't know the definition of this group used in the study), and rich, though the difference between rich and middle class was not totally clear to me.


You need only look at any big city in the US that has been run by democrats for decades to see exactly what I mean. Things continue to get worse yet people keep voting democrat. That is the cycle of dependency that has been created so people keep voting for more of the same failed policies.

X

To tie that in with the previous segment: I live in one of the most conservative states in the nation, and one of the most rural. We hired people from the very bottom end of the socio-economic scale. They voted conservative consistently, and they stayed mired in poverty consistently. There wasn't any welfare that I was aware of, or very little, but the book I referred to earlier did an excellent job of describing their attitudes towards....pretty much everything that affected their personal economies.

My personal view is that the conservative attack on welfare is well intentioned and totally misguided (with just a few groups going after welfare for totally cynical and self-serving reasons). It really doesn't make much difference whether we provide welfare or not as long as the attitudes of the poor remain as they are. These rural folks I worked with, who didn't have any noticeable welfare, were not being held down by the MAN, but by themselves and their own attitudes. They remained mired in a rigid social structure where the men worked and the women married the first guy who would take them or the first one that got them pregnant (seriously, one gal I knew was doing that quite explicitly). The women couldn't be persuaded to get an education, and it largely appeared to be due to a belief that they weren't capable of such, despite some of them being highly intelligent. The men did all right at supporting the lifestyle in good times, but the industry in a rural area is anything but diverse, and the whole region went through boom/bust cycles routinely. Since the men never tried to diversify their options, and the women simply refused to believe that they had options, they were trapped in a cage of their own making.

Blaming that attitude on welfare is very convenient, and in some cases it may even contribute. Welfare will NEVER overcome an attitude like that, but nor will the cessation of welfare. The welfare state is utterly irrelevant to people who have expectations of never being more than poor. You have to replace the lack of dreams with some belief that they are even capable of a brighter future.

On the other hand, I would not characterize the people I knew as unhappy. I wouldn't be able to live like that, but that's probably because I have a different set of expectations, so I wouldn't be happy living like that. They had very limited expectations and appeared to be entirely happy within the context of their own dreams. A few of the older women did express a real disappointment that they hadn't gotten an education, though those regrets, while bitterly stated, were only held among women older than 50.

Aside from the question of whether welfare is good or bad, do we have the right to dictate what standard of living is necessary for happiness? With these folks, it wasn't a question of bringing a horse to water and not being able to get them to drink. Instead, it simply wasn't possible to convince them that there was water, and they were content to be thirsty.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Ahhhh... There are few pleasures in the world greater than watching liberals squirm whenever you dare to tell the truth about them.

Allow me to translate: This can't possibly be true because after all,



:D

You aren't much for translation, are you....oh wait, if it's more than a sound byte conservatives can't process it.

[SurfDemon]

The worst thing you can do for a person is to give them welfare, because it keeps a person poor and creates a cycle of dependency that lasts for generations.

I would argue that it would be worse to allow them and their young children to starve to death or resort to crime to feed their family......

We are a rich enough society that we can afford to keep everyone alive. True, I don't see any point at throwing lots of money at people who aren't working, but I do see a huge moral obligation to ensure that they and their children are fed, clothed, cared for (medically) and educated. This can be done without giving them money. Food stamps, clothing stamps etc.

If they want to continue not working for the rest of their days and eeking out a living, then that is their choice, but for most people on welfare I would assume that they want the better things that life has to offer (such as holidays abroad and flat screen tv's). Some people end up on the dole through unfortunate circumstances (factories closing etc.), not because they are lazy parasites.