Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   NYT Question: How did Corporate America lose control of the Republican Party? NYT Answer: They've been outspent. Real Answer: They haven't   (nymag.com) divider line 58
    More: Obvious, NYT, Republican, just fine, income redistribution, House Republicans  
•       •       •

1324 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Sep 2013 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-04 12:44:08 PM  
I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.
 
2013-09-04 02:48:08 PM  
Article lacks substance.
 
2013-09-04 02:48:58 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.


It's not leaving the establishment GOP, but the Teabaggers are destabilizing the national cohesion of the party and giving Democrats more room to legislate from the left (at least on social issues). The banks own both parties anyway, though.
 
2013-09-04 03:02:01 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

It's not leaving the establishment GOP, but the Teabaggers are destabilizing the national cohesion of the party and giving Democrats more room to legislate from the left (at least on social issues). The banks own both parties anyway, though.


People have made this "Its all material / Its all ideological" arguments for a long, long time.

Its a mix, and to you need to contextualize the question to narrow down agency to specific actions.

Saying "The GOP basically run by (Material/Ideology)," overall, without narrowing it down, is going to be a tough argument to make.  Its not made here in this tiny space.
 
2013-09-04 03:38:27 PM  
The obvious tag must've been standing there waiting for this article for quite some time
 
2013-09-04 03:38:41 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.


I think that in the long run, it's less about ideology and more about results. If business ideology matches up with the GOP, but if the GOP has gone so far off the rails that they can't get elected and legislate that ideology, business will drop them and start continue corrupting the Democrats.
 
2013-09-04 03:38:54 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

It's not leaving the establishment GOP, but the Teabaggers are destabilizing the national cohesion of the party and giving Democrats more room to legislate from the left (at least on social issues). The banks own both parties anyway, though.

People have made this "Its all material / Its all ideological" arguments for a long, long time.

Its a mix, and to you need to contextualize the question to narrow down agency to specific actions.

Saying "The GOP basically run by (Material/Ideology)," overall, without narrowing it down, is going to be a tough argument to make.  Its not made here in this tiny space.


I'm mostly looking at levels of influence based on campaign dollars. It's much murkier after Citizens United, which is the way moneyed interests want it. However, it's not rocket science to look at policy positions and correlate with where the bulk of wealth resides in this country.
 
2013-09-04 03:39:19 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.


I dunno...  Look at the GOP's war on the economy.  You'd think businesses would think "Man, no matter how many tax breaks Republicans promise to give us if they take power again, it's not worth it for what they're doing to the general economy."
 
2013-09-04 03:40:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I dunno...  Look at the GOP's war on the economy.  You'd think businesses would think "Man, no matter how many tax breaks Republicans promise to give us if they take power again, it's not worth it for what they're doing to the general economy."


They're still making massive profits NOW, and that's all that matters.
 
2013-09-04 03:40:29 PM  
Seems like a paeo/business-conservative lamenting the loss of control of the party and not really recognizing what's happened.  Loss of control to 'ideological' donors = the new GOP.
 
2013-09-04 03:41:55 PM  

LordJiro: Satanic_Hamster: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I dunno...  Look at the GOP's war on the economy.  You'd think businesses would think "Man, no matter how many tax breaks Republicans promise to give us if they take power again, it's not worth it for what they're doing to the general economy."

They're still making massive profits NOW, and that's all that matters.


QFT. What are the taxpayers if not the backstop for risky ventures?
 
2013-09-04 03:46:14 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I dunno...  Look at the GOP's war on the economy.  You'd think businesses would think "Man, no matter how many tax breaks Republicans promise to give us if they take power again, it's not worth it for what they're doing to the general economy."


1. They're still making record profits.

2. Most conservative donors don't care about the general economy, they care about their personal economy.

3. Some are so ideological that they would spend every penny to their name to make sure none go to poor people.
 
2013-09-04 03:49:59 PM  
I'm confused.  Isn't the NYT and "New York Magazine" two separate entities?
 
2013-09-04 03:50:07 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I'm mostly looking at levels of influence based on campaign dollars. It's much murkier after Citizens United, which is the way moneyed interests want it. However, it's not rocket science to look at policy positions and correlate with where the bulk of wealth resides in this country.


Do you see the issue of trying to measure Material and Ideology... with material?


At any rate, do it.


I just posted an article that, strangely covered this exact topic.

Political Donations
The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.

While most of the Jewish groups' donations lean Democratic, Adelson alone transformed the 2012 Republican primary when he and his wife used $15 million in private funds to sustain the unsuccessful candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then poured $53 million into groups advancing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In all, Adelson and his wife donated $93 million to Republican causes in the 2012 campaign, center data shows.
I have a few other articles on a similar topic.

Of course, this is measuring ideology with material. Thats inherently goofy. You have politicians with deep ideological convictions that have pounded their chests and not deviated from these deep convictions. Measuring this with material skews the subject into forcing things through a materialist lens.

I find that adequately answering this question to be a tough nut to crack. You find it easy.

Surprise me.
 
2013-09-04 03:50:29 PM  
I was at a charity thing a few weeks ago and overheard two guys talking about being pissed about the uncertainty the teabaggers were creating that was making it hard for the startups they were investing in to get contracts from some of the fortune 500 companies.
 
2013-09-04 03:51:11 PM  

Party Boy: Article lacks substance.


but has lots of opinion...
 
2013-09-04 03:52:50 PM  
Where does the New York Times come into this?
 
2013-09-04 03:55:48 PM  

monoski: but has lots of opinion...


cucumbers taste better pickled
 
2013-09-04 03:56:49 PM  

qorkfiend: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I think that in the long run, it's less about ideology and more about results.


Were that the case, Republicans would already be extinct.

It's all about ideology. You could tie a "job creator" to a chair, tape his eyes open, and present all the evidence in the world showing that increasing aggregate demand would help his bottom line, and he would still hate those union thugs and lazy food-stampers.
 
2013-09-04 03:57:43 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm mostly looking at levels of influence based on campaign dollars. It's much murkier after Citizens United, which is the way moneyed interests want it. However, it's not rocket science to look at policy positions and correlate with where the bulk of wealth resides in this country.

Do you see the issue of trying to measure Material and Ideology... with material?
At any rate, do it.
I just posted an article that, strangely covered this exact topic. Political Donations
The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.

While most of the Jewish groups' donations lean Democratic, Adelson alone transformed the 2012 Republican primary when he and his wife used $15 million in private funds to sustain the unsuccessful candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and then poured $53 million into groups advancing Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In all, Adelson and his wife donated $93 million to Republican causes in the 2012 campaign, center data shows.I have a few other articles on a similar topic.

Of course, this is measuring ideology with material. Thats inherently goofy. You have politicians with deep ideological convictions that have pounded their chests and not deviated from these deep convictions. Measuring this with material skews the subject into forcing things through a materialist lens.

I find that adequately answering this question to be a tough nut to crack. You find it easy.

Surprise me.


You made a point in one of those posts that Sheldon Adelson's ideology was the driving factor in his support of Gingrich. My point is that the ideology of those with money is not that of the politicians they "support." The democratic process is absolutely for sale, within the limits the public will accept. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I do believe that the majority of politicians are either bought, willing to be bought, or if not, marginalized by their parties' respective establishments.
 
2013-09-04 03:58:37 PM  

lilbjorn: Where does the New York Times come into this?


The first line of the article.
 
2013-09-04 03:58:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I dunno...  Look at the GOP's war on the economy.  You'd think businesses would think "Man, no matter how many tax breaks Republicans promise to give us if they take power again, it's not worth it for what they're doing to the general economy."


What do they care about the general economy? Corporate profits are at an all time high.
 
2013-09-04 04:01:02 PM  

Wendy's Chili: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I think that in the long run, it's less about ideology and more about results.

Were that the case, Republicans would already be extinct.

It's all about ideology. You could tie a "job creator" to a chair, tape his eyes open, and present all the evidence in the world showing that increasing aggregate demand would help his bottom line, and he would still hate those union thugs and lazy food-stampers.


How so? The GOP has gotten results, especially on the state level. Business has an agenda, and they want people who can enact that agenda. There's no way they'd stick with the GOP if ideology rendered the GOP unelectable, because the GOP would then be useless to them.
 
2013-09-04 04:01:31 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I do believe that the majority of politicians are either bought, willing to be bought, or if not, marginalized by their parties' respective establishments.


provide evidence that proves this.
 
2013-09-04 04:04:00 PM  

qorkfiend: Wendy's Chili: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I think that in the long run, it's less about ideology and more about results.

Were that the case, Republicans would already be extinct.

It's all about ideology. You could tie a "job creator" to a chair, tape his eyes open, and present all the evidence in the world showing that increasing aggregate demand would help his bottom line, and he would still hate those union thugs and lazy food-stampers.

How so? The GOP has gotten results, especially on the state level. Business has an agenda, and they want people who can enact that agenda. There's no way they'd stick with the GOP if ideology rendered the GOP unelectable, because the GOP would then be useless to them.


I meant economic results, not political.
 
2013-09-04 04:06:47 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: I do believe that the majority of politicians are either bought, willing to be bought, or if not, marginalized by their parties' respective establishments.

provide evidence that proves this.


provide evidence they're driven by ideology.

It's clear that Congress isn't working for their constituents, or they wouldn't have an approval rating lower than anthrax. So who are they working for? I'm not saying every politician is 100% unprincipled. I am saying they are willing to do the bidding of the PACs and individuals that get them elected, and that they are more than happy to accept contributions from any group that isn't horribly misaligned with their personal principles.
 
2013-09-04 04:12:08 PM  

Wendy's Chili: qorkfiend: Wendy's Chili: qorkfiend: DamnYankees: I don't understand why anyone would think business is leaving the GOP. They deviate on nothing important.

I think that in the long run, it's less about ideology and more about results.

Were that the case, Republicans would already be extinct.

It's all about ideology. You could tie a "job creator" to a chair, tape his eyes open, and present all the evidence in the world showing that increasing aggregate demand would help his bottom line, and he would still hate those union thugs and lazy food-stampers.

How so? The GOP has gotten results, especially on the state level. Business has an agenda, and they want people who can enact that agenda. There's no way they'd stick with the GOP if ideology rendered the GOP unelectable, because the GOP would then be useless to them.

I meant economic results, not political.


I dunno about that, either. Wages are at an all-time low as a percentage of the GDP; corporate profits are at an all-time high. Unions are largely a thing of the past. Business subsidies persist, despite widespread opposition. Privatization ideology remains strong. Attempts at regulation are either defeated or watered down. Taxes are low. Minimum wage hikes are DOA. From a big business perspective, life is pretty good.
 
2013-09-04 04:12:47 PM  
it was once said that an honest politician was one that stayed bought after you paid him

that said, the question is: how many of "our" politicians are "owned" by interests that live here?
 
2013-09-04 04:17:33 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: provide evidence they're driven by ideology.


Tu Quoque argument.

As stated above, I would caution against making a sweeping generalization that "congress" is driven by material/ideology.

Are there people driven by ideology?  Yep.  

Its a mix, isn't it. We're not really sure of the percentages or amounts, arent we?  Aren't they contextual to the question being asked?

How much could a senator be bought off to pass a bill giving another $15k to an agribusiness, versus... say... a bill requiring all members of congress to suck 50 dicks for 50 months?    Even the people are contextualized to the question asked, right?
 
2013-09-04 04:22:03 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: So who are they working for?


I assume the answer is "themselves".

I just find it easier to believe that for politicians, taking care of yourself and your interest comes first.
It don't think it matters which special interest group approaches them so long as they can benefit from that group.

//On a related note I just started "This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral-Plus, Plenty of Valley Parking in America's Gilded Capital" by Mark Leibovich and its pretty good.
//Cheers
 
2013-09-04 04:22:54 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: provide evidence they're driven by ideology.

Tu Quoque argument.

As stated above, I would caution against making a sweeping generalization that "congress" is driven by material/ideology.

Are there people driven by ideology?  Yep.  

Its a mix, isn't it. We're not really sure of the percentages or amounts, arent we?  Aren't they contextual to the question being asked?

How much could a senator be bought off to pass a bill giving another $15k to an agribusiness, versus... say... a bill requiring all members of congress to suck 50 dicks for 50 months?    Even the people are contextualized to the question asked, right?


Now you're just getting silly. Of course there are limits, and some politicians are not easily bought. Game theory would suggest that these politicians don't have very long careers, as they would be unable to maintain the gargantuan war-chests necessary to win elections these days. You're really hung up on this false dichotomy. Take a look at qorkfiend's laundry list of pro-business legislation and tell me that Congress is acting on behalf of the people and not corporate lobbyists.
 
2013-09-04 04:28:29 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Now you're just getting silly.


Am I?

If you're Eric Cantor, you'll fight tooth and nail against a bill that he perceives as against Israel.   Do you think the religious fundies are going to take money that compromises their, say, stance on abortion?   Theres an amazing array of questions and the stance of the individual has to be examined.  In fact, the question and how it relates contextually to the individual must be examined.  A sweeping statement doesnt just conflate the people, it conflates the wide varieties of questions made to the individual.
 
2013-09-04 04:28:59 PM  
If I owned both political parties and I wanted to shift the political spectrum to the more business-friendly right ...

I would push one party to the extreme right and position the other as slightly right-wing.  The extremist party makes the other one look moderate, while the moderate party is passing very business-friendly legislation.

Corporate America is doing very well no matter who is in charge.
 
2013-09-04 04:36:38 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: Now you're just getting silly.

Am I?

If you're Eric Cantor, you'll fight tooth and nail against a bill that he perceives as against Israel.   Do you think the religious fundies are going to take money that compromises their, say, stance on abortion?   Theres an amazing array of questions and the stance of the individual has to be examined.  In fact, the question and how it relates contextually to the individual must be examined.  A sweeping statement doesnt just conflate the people, it conflates the wide varieties of questions made to the individual.


Now you're just getting vague.

I already said that there were limits, and that politicians would accept money from any group(s) not horribly misaligned with their own principles. Doesn't make them any less bought. There is money to be got on both sides of any "wedge issue."
 
2013-09-04 04:43:02 PM  

qorkfiend: I dunno about that, either. Wages are at an all-time low as a percentage of the GDP; corporate profits are at an all-time high. Unions are largely a thing of the past. Business subsidies persist, despite widespread opposition. Privatization ideology remains strong. Attempts at regulation are either defeated or watered down. Taxes are low. Minimum wage hikes are DOA. From a big business perspective, life is pretty good


And if you think about it, this has been a mostly bipartisan effort to get this agenda in place. Not that I am ever going to suggest BSABSVR, because both sides are not equally bad. I am just saying the pro corporate agenda has it's fans with the democrats too.
 
2013-09-04 04:43:57 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Now you're just getting vague.

I already said that there were limits, and that politicians would accept money from any group(s) not horribly misaligned with their own principles. Doesn't make them any less bought. There is money to be got on both sides of any "wedge issue."


Interesting.

Here is the problem.  These statements above assume you have a handle on the overall picture on ideology -v- material.  I'm saying you don;t have that research and you don't have information for how "it all works" or even "how it mostly works."  I'm also making a point that you want to measure ideology with money and thats faulty.  Lastly, you have to look at how this has to avoid conflations that change dpending on the individual question to the person.

In short. in order to make a claim on how this "mostly" works, youll need information, not just on the people, but on the individual questions to the people.  This is a monumental task.  You just don't have this research.
 
2013-09-04 04:51:44 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: Now you're just getting vague.

I already said that there were limits, and that politicians would accept money from any group(s) not horribly misaligned with their own principles. Doesn't make them any less bought. There is money to be got on both sides of any "wedge issue."

Interesting.

Here is the problem.  These statements above assume you have a handle on the overall picture on ideology -v- material.  I'm saying you don;t have that research and you don't have information for how "it all works" or even "how it mostly works."  I'm also making a point that you want to measure ideology with money and thats faulty.  Lastly, you have to look at how this has to avoid conflations that change dpending on the individual question to the person.

In short. in order to make a claim on how this "mostly" works, youll need information, not just on the people, but on the individual questions to the people.  This is a monumental task.  You just don't have this research.


I don't need data on every elected official and their voting record vs. campaign contributions. The fact is that campaigns are expensive to the point that the resources necessary to reach elected office are only attainable by accepting contributions. Would you disagree with that? The ultra-principled are not a factor, as they are easily replaced with greedier, more amenable politicians. The whole system is awash in so much money that it makes no sense that ideology would trump materialism when materialism drives the process.
 
2013-09-04 04:54:41 PM  
They stuck their dick in crazy.
 
2013-09-04 04:57:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: They stuck their dick in teabagged crazy.


Couldn't help it. :)
 
2013-09-04 04:59:25 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I don't need data on every elected official and their voting record vs. campaign contributions.


UrukHaiGuyz: The ultra-principled are not a factor


Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis
If people want to make a bold statement on the endless ideology/materialism debate, everyone needs to step away from confirmation bias and actually do the research they claim to understand - the whole.

Its the same argument everytime.
"I know how it (mostly works)."
-do you have proof?
"I don't need it."
"Those counter examples are less important than the limited ones i present."


If you want to convince me you have a deep understanding of how it (mostly) works, youll need to provide evidence on that. Again, focusing on money as your metric is a bias towards materialism. While your scenarios are important, its not correct to make these sweeping statements without the research that is needed.
 
2013-09-04 05:08:31 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: I don't need data on every elected official and their voting record vs. campaign contributions.

UrukHaiGuyz: The ultra-principled are not a factor

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis
If people want to make a bold statement on the endless ideology/materialism debate, everyone needs to step away from confirmation bias and actually do the research they claim to understand - the whole.

Its the same argument everytime.
"I know how it (mostly works)."
-do you have proof?
"I don't need it."
"Those counter examples are less important than the limited ones i present."


If you want to convince me you have a deep understanding of how it (mostly) works, youll need to provide evidence on that. Again, focusing on money as your metric is a bias towards materialism. While your scenarios are important, its not correct to make these sweeping statements without the research that is needed.


Round and round we go. Politics is a money game. If votes were more important to election outcomes than money, we would have more idealistic politicians. It isn't, so we don't. Idealism does play a role, but a much smaller one. Thanks for cherry-picking my quotes and "explaining" confirmation bias to me, though.
 
2013-09-04 05:15:46 PM  

Party Boy: If you want to convince me you have a deep understanding of how it (mostly) works, youll need to provide evidence on that. Again, focusing on money as your metric is a bias towards materialism. While your scenarios are important, its not correct to make these sweeping statements without the research that is needed.


I thought the process was something like:
Individual Personality -> Ideology -> Political Identity -> Parameters for Acceptable Materialism

//There is a 3 part lecture by Chris Mooney that talks about the Personality of Republicans and Democrats
//One of Mooney's main points was that Republicans and Democrats are simply different  kinds of people.
//He talks about things like "The need for closure" vs. "acceptance of ambiguity".
 
2013-09-04 05:29:56 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Round and round we go. Politics is a money game. If votes were more important to election outcomes than money, we would have more idealistic politicians. It isn't, so we don't. Idealism does play a role, but a much smaller one. Thanks for cherry-picking my quotes and "explaining" confirmation bias to me, though.


How much money would congress take to accept:

• A Monarchy
• Socialism
• Buddhism as the state religion
• Anarcho Syndicalism
• Sharia Law
• Reinstating Slavery

This is where you under weigh these points.  You'll miss how theres parameters around which questions to congress are for sale, and how other questions are outside acceptable US political discourse.  The US has a really lively discourse around some really narrow bands.

You'll likely restate some general tautology where | Politics is a money game -> why? ->  Because money.

The only reason we're going round and round is that your argument is tautological. You make a claim on how it (mostly) works, but you haven't done the research.
 
2013-09-04 05:44:41 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: Round and round we go. Politics is a money game. If votes were more important to election outcomes than money, we would have more idealistic politicians. It isn't, so we don't. Idealism does play a role, but a much smaller one. Thanks for cherry-picking my quotes and "explaining" confirmation bias to me, though.

How much money would congress take to accept:

• A Monarchy
• Socialism
• Buddhism as the state religion
• Anarcho Syndicalism
• Sharia Law
• Reinstating Slavery


This is where you under weigh these points.  You'll miss how theres parameters around which questions to congress are for sale, and how other questions are outside acceptable US political discourse.  The US has a really lively discourse around some really narrow bands.

You'll likely restate some general tautology where | Politics is a money game -> why? ->  Because money.

The only reason we're going round and round is that your argument is tautological. You make a claim on how it (mostly) works, but you haven't done the research.


Are you kidding me? These are so laughably far outside the parameters of mainstream culture (not to mention prohibited by the Constitution) that any claims of a "narrow band" sound silly. Congress can only act within the bounds of what the general public will accept, true. Thanks to the flood of propaganda and misinformation disseminated to the public by moneyed interests, however, this happens to be quite a wide gulf.

I only claim politics is a money game based on legislative outcomes. Corporate interests are routinely served at the expense of the average citizen. Why is this, do you think?
 
2013-09-04 06:06:32 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: so laughably far outside the parameters of mainstream culture (not to mention prohibited by the Constitution)


Parameters provided by an ideological document.

Lets recap.

1) You don't have figures or data on the whole, or "most" of the whole.
2) You want to quantify a discussion of ideology and materialism with.... a unit of material.
3) Sweeping statements of conflations.  These things are deeply contextual.
4) The framing of the questions themselves have ideological and material components.

<a rel="nofollow" data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" www.sciencedaily.com="" articles="" c="" confirmation_bias.htm"="" target="_blank">Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis

UrukHaiGuyz: Corporate interests are routinely served at the expense of the average citizen. Why is this, do you think?


If I provided an example, like Conoco, it would go like this.  You would want citations.  I have a lot.  (post, post, post, post)  In the end, you would under weigh it since you know how the "bulk" of it works... but you never provide this research.

Look.  If you are going to make these sweeping statements, you have to back it up. Its hollow otherwise. You make good points.  It goes awry when you position politics as material and dismiss the ideological.
 
2013-09-04 06:18:13 PM  

Party Boy: UrukHaiGuyz: so laughably far outside the parameters of mainstream culture (not to mention prohibited by the Constitution)

Parameters provided by an ideological document.

Lets recap.

1) You don't have figures or data on the whole, or "most" of the whole.
2) You want to quantify a discussion of ideology and materialism with.... a unit of material.
3) Sweeping statements of conflations.  These things are deeply contextual.
4) The framing of the questions themselves have ideological and material components.

UrukHaiGuyz: Corporate interests are routinely served at the expense of the average citizen. Why is this, do you think?

If I provided an example, like Conoco, it would go like this.  You would want citations.  I have a lot.  (post, post, post, post)  In the end, you would under weigh it since you know how the "bulk" of it works... but you never provide this research.

Look.  If you are going to make these sweeping statements, you have to back it up. Its hollow otherwise. You make good points.  It goes awry when you position politics as material and dismiss the ideological.


Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. :) I'm working (ostensibly). I think that ideology is co-opted by unscrupulous politicians in order to enrich themselves and maintain power.
The data on outcomes is easy to find, and the increasing gulf between rich and poor, stagnant wages, sapping of union strength, constant record profits, prolonged wars that enrich the MIC, refusal to accept basic scientific consensus as valid, increased privatization of government functions and a million other things point to a political system that serves a rich oligarchs at the expense of the rest of us.
 
2013-09-04 06:19:59 PM  
Oligarchy, even.
 
2013-09-04 06:21:37 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. :) I'm working (ostensibly). I think that ideology is co-opted by unscrupulous politicians in order to enrich themselves and maintain power.


I get it, and its fun to speculate, but we have to know when were building a house on a weak foundation.

UrukHaiGuyz: prolonged wars that enrich the MIC


If you make this argument on Iraq, you are going to have a bad time.  [southpark.jpg]
People are too lose on these terms.
 
2013-09-04 06:25:40 PM  
If this is going to Iraq.. might as well start here.

Iraq is a topic that is conflated too often....
 
2013-09-04 06:30:54 PM  

Party Boy: If this is going to Iraq.. might as well start here.

Iraq is a topic that is conflated too often....


Oil is not relevant. War itself is good business for defense contractors, private security firms, inflating the Pentagon budget, etc. We sent pallets of cash to Iraq, for chrissakes. Even the fog of war is useful for making taxpayer money disappear.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report