Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-10-2011, 08:42 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:59 PM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Did Jesus and Satan have a sister?
chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:12 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Love how the left just can't resist the use of 'attack' to describe anyone pointing out the vast differences between the Tea Party and Day Of Rage/OWS. Cain attacks, GOP attacks, conservatives attack. Yet people calling for violence against bankers/millionaires, defecating on police cars, expecting the taxpayers of NY to pick up the tab for their mess/disruption are just expressing frustration lol.

Check out the lemmings at the Occupy Atlanta gathering. Treating attendees like a kindergarten class and screeching "mike check!" if anyone starts saying anything the useful idiot wranglers don't want to hear.

Of course this is followed by pats on the back that "democracy works".

Change You Can Believe In!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:42 PM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

I've been to the protests, in DC. I didn't see anyone calling for violence against millionaires or anyone else. I didn't see anyone defecating on police cars, when I was there. In fact, I didn't see any police cars.

If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:46 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
Listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
That was great. Here's a longer clip from the same show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnSu0DG3Oo

Grayson is truly fantastic.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:20 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post

If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street
That is a pretty common laundry list of left wing talking points delivered by a pretty nasty left wing partisan. In fact, I think I've heard the President complaining about all of those points.

You've heard people on the right complain about the some things (for different reasons, of course). The issue is how you address these things. That is where the debate is.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-11-2011, 09:30 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools View Post
If you want to characterize these activities in ways that limit your understanding, then there really isn't much opportunity for thoughtful dialogue. If you are interested in hearing a forceful articulation of the grievances that are motivating at least some of the people drawn to these protests, listen to Alan Grayson explain things in less than 1 minute:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/alan-...py-wall-street

Alan Grayson? The guy who tried to terrify seniors by telling them the GOP wanted them to die quickly? The Alan Grayson who was shunned by his own party and thrown out of office for dishonest political ads? That Alan Grayson? Wow. What was that you were saying about thoughtful dialogue?

You can easily google the photo of a Day Of Rage/OWS demonstraor defecating on a police car. Roseanne Barr and Michael Moore, while cheering on these protests have subtly and not-to-subtly advised violence against bankers with too much money (Barr said they should be beheaded, nice take on Arab Spring).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:15 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

There isn't a single Republican in the United States of America which will have to cater to the demands of Occupy Wall Street. At best, OWS represents a subset of urban professional. The GOP doesn't count on any of these votes in normal elections, and these people are already high volume voters. There is no room for their vote to grow, and their vote is never competitive anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:49 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
There isn't a single Republican in the United States of America which will have to cater to the demands of Occupy Wall Street. At best, OWS represents a subset of urban professional. The GOP doesn't count on any of these votes in normal elections, and these people are already high volume voters. There is no room for their vote to grow, and their vote is never competitive anyway.
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left. The GOP did a masterful job of coopting this segment of the tea party during the past few years. What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently. It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:36 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left.... The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
But the important and big difference is that the Tea Party sanctifies the absolute right of private property, i.e., the capital of plutocrats and the withering away of the New Deal, while populists on "the left" tend to clamor for the simple enforcing of the law, (reinstaing Glass-Stegall, indictments of Wall St.,) a fairer and more progressive tax policy, stronger unions, etc. Thats a considerable difference.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 12:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:18 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
But the important and big difference is that the Tea Party sanctifies the absolute right of private property, i.e., the capital of plutocrats and the withering away of the New Deal, while populists on "the left" tend to clamor for the simple enforcing of the law, (reinstaing Glass-Stegall, indictments of Wall St.,) a fairer and more progressive tax policy, stronger unions, etc. Thats a considerable difference.
What crime was committed in 2008 that the Obama administration has failed to indict upon?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:06 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
What crime was committed in 2008 that the Obama administration has failed to indict upon?
Quite a few, STD, from the point of the view of those who are of the left of Obama. Do your research.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:48 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Quite a few, STD, from the point of the view of those who are of the left of Obama. Do your research.
I'm more interested in actual violations of the law, rather than criminalizing "bad ideas" as seen by the Left. Do you have specific criminal violations in mind, or is it that you just consider the legal regime to be "criminal"?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:43 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
I'm more interested in actual violations of the law, rather than criminalizing "bad ideas" as seen by the Left.
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-11-2011, 10:45 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Why in the world would the DOJ need the people protesting on Wall Street to encourage it to get off its ass? Isn't it their job to prosecute criminals? Don't we pay them to do this? Shouldn't the Obama administration (of which DOJ is a part) be actively pursuing the issuing indictments for wrongdoing if there is any?
Would that include investigating and issuing indictments of Fannie and Freddie?

It's been three years now and I don't think this bodes well for prosecuting these folks you and I have mentioned. It looks like either they stayed far enough inside the letter of the law that nothing they did was illegal or there is so much collusion between Wall Street and Washington that nothing will ever be done.

Besides, Eric Holder is way too busy denying his involvement in Fast and Furious.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
Perhaps a concerned citizen like yourself can help OWS get the DOJ off its ass to start leveling indictments against GOldman, Merrill, et al, and have it play out in court so we'd all have a better idea! Bring it on we say!
Right. You see the problem; it isn't illegal to make a bad investment. You basically want show trials?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:43 PM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Right. You see the problem; it isn't illegal to make a bad investment. You basically want show trials?
not "show trials" but justice.

Last edited by ginger baker; 10-11-2011 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-11-2011, 06:01 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
not "show trials" but justice.
Something has to be illegal before you can put them on trial. If it wasn't illegal, than the President has failed to pass laws to make it illegal since. Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-12-2011, 08:58 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Something has to be illegal before you can put them on trial.
Thanks to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, laws have now been written which will save us from all future malfeasance.

Quote:
If it wasn't illegal, than the President has failed to pass laws to make it illegal since. Correct?
Just an itty bitty correction...the president doesn't pass laws.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-12-2011, 05:46 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Just an itty bitty correction...the president doesn't pass laws.
Of course. It is easy to fall into the pablum of the MSM and the left. I meant that the President failed to call for his Democratic Congress to pass laws to outlaw.....finance, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:14 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Actually, there's a big segment of the GOP base and the tea party movement that is just as outraged by Wall Street / Corporate abuses as anyone on the left. The GOP did a masterful job of coopting this segment of the tea party during the past few years. What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently. It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement. But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
Well there isn't really a "coopting" of this segment of people. Anti-TARP sentiment is pretty broad based in the Tea Party; their answer isn't taxing or punishing some vague "1%". It is to create a political environment where banks which engage in such recklessly irresponsible conduct are allowed to fail. Some sort of structured bankruptcy or dismemberment of them. This has nothing to do with business owners, or manufacturing boards, or landowners.

And since the Conservative movement was the only group which can credibly claim to have fought (And defeated, once) TARP, the alignment of the Tea Party isn't all that mysterious.

A good question is; why are these people supporting the President and political party of the government which has overseen this financial industry over the last 3 years? Where were these people in 2010, when the Tea Party demonstrated against these bailouts? How can these people claim any credibility when their standard bearer received vastly more money from the financial industry than his opponent?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:28 AM
CrowsMakeTools CrowsMakeTools is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 54
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post

A good question is; why are these people supporting the President and political party of the government which has overseen this financial industry over the last 3 years? Where were these people in 2010, when the Tea Party demonstrated against these bailouts? How can these people claim any credibility when their standard bearer received vastly more money from the financial industry than his opponent?
Um, your premise that Obama is the standard bearer of OWS is just false. The Occupy DC protest was on Pennsylvania Avenue, a few blocks from the White House. These people are there precisely because they want to let both the Administration and the Congress know that current policies are not working! There were no signs of support for President Obama. There were, in fact, a few Ron Paul signs! If there is any common thread in the views that are held by people attending these rallies, it is that the current policies have failed. Your point that Obama and the Dems have been generously supported by Wall Street plutocrats is pretty much the consensus view of people attending these rallies. The consensus view seems to be that the Obama administration has not provided oversight of the financial sector--in fact, they have done Wall Street's bidding.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-11-2011, 10:13 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
What is really worrying the GOP is that a movement like "We are the 99%" could mobilize some of those traditional GOP voters to start voting and thinking differently.
very doubtful.

Quote:
It probably won't happen. The obstacles are enormous, and a massive campaign will be carried out to discredit and destroy the movement.
An expensive campaign wouldn't be necessary. People who vote GOP don't believe so much of what these folks stand for they could never be turned. It's not in their blood.

Quote:
But there ARE a lot under the tea party banner who share the same populist economic concerns expressed by the 99%'ers.
and there are some views which are correct and lots which are not.

Like this stuff, for instance: (I deleted the items the TP might find worthy...namely the bank bailouts and lobbyists in the halls of government.) And as a side note, Alex Jones likes OWS a lot.

Quote:
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:41 PM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

thank you bhtv for an intelligent and fair analysis of OWS. But I have to disagree with Posner's remark (and Weigel's audible nod) that the protestors concede "failure" by the Democratic Party. They may certainly feel it, as well they should, but I dont hear much partisan griping or malcontent directed at Obama. Yes, Charlie Rangel was booed away! But there is no "third-party" presence, no Green Party, no Nader, no talk of 2012. OWS will certainly affect and shift the public discourse to some degree but, barring some further development, they will probably end up voting for Obama anyway!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:06 AM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger baker View Post
OWS will certainly affect and shift the public discourse to some degree but, barring some further development, they will probably end up voting for Obama anyway!
The issue is not 3rd party. The issue is turnout. OWS will not bother voting for a guy who "understands the frustration of the folks out there." The frustration? The frustration of the 18-25 year old cohort whose future is being wiped out before their very eyes. As long as Obama doesn't take on the mantle of the presidency and keeps behaving like the dog catcher "who just can't understand the mighty forces out there," he's toast. OWS is the final nail in the Obama coffin, the prez who never quite got it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:27 AM
ginger baker ginger baker is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 103
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
The issue is not 3rd party. The issue is turnout. OWS will not bother voting for a guy who "understands the frustration of the folks out there." The frustration? The frustration of the 18-25 year old cohort whose future is being wiped out before their very eyes. As long as Obama doesn't take on the mantle of the presidency and keeps behaving like the dog catcher "who just can't understand the mighty forces out there," he's toast. OWS is the final nail in the Obama coffin, the prez who never quite got it.
I've attended the protests in NYC. There's little if any noise being made on the ground about 2012, not even about "turnout." Yes, probably more in the MSM I'm sure, and even more on its way once it gets its talking points coordinated.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:08 PM
Abdicate Abdicate is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Posts: 90
Send a message via Yahoo to Abdicate Send a message via Skype™ to Abdicate
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

What caused the financial implosion of 2008? I thought that regulatory capture was fundamental. So financiers manipulated the regulatory agencies which should have been bubble-popping, and private risk was legally shifted onto ill-informed taxpayers.

Amy Wax speaks often of a generalizable analogy--of a person physically injured in an attack. While a decent societal response should involve the punishment of the attackers and the transfer of their assets, if any, to the victim, the ultimate success of the recovery depends greatly on the victim's attitude/effort/strategy for recovery. The OWS temptation--to dwell on the punishment of the financiers--feels like it addresses our present woes, but in fact it is an abdication.

Last edited by Abdicate; 10-11-2011 at 02:09 PM.. Reason: link addition
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:12 AM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Annoying to hear Sarah continually perpetuate the myth that evangelicals are the people who really hate mormons. Polling consistently suggests distrust of mormons is pretty much the same amongst evangelicals as it is amongst the population at large. unfortunately for mormons, it's not a small number (usually around 20%) but the point remains.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-11-2011, 11:15 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
Annoying to hear Sarah continually perpetuate the myth that evangelicals are the people who really hate mormons. Polling consistently suggests distrust of mormons is pretty much the same amongst evangelicals as it is amongst the population at large. unfortunately for mormons, it's not a small number (usually around 20%) but the point remains.
That's not totally true. There are probably other surveys I don't know about, but the 2011 Gallup one doesn't seem to have addressed the question and the 2007 Pew one shows a distinct difference between evangelical and other attitudes, with African-American Protestants somewhat close (unsurprising, as that's often a subset of evangelicalism).

Specifically, the favorable/unfavorable ratio is:

Overall=53/27
White evangelical=46/39
White mainline=62/21
Black protestant=42/28
Catholic=55/22
White, non-hispanic Catholic (a subset)=59/21
Non-affiliated=52/30

There's a big difference between 21-22% unfavorable (the percentage for Catholics and Mainline Protestants) and 39% unfavorable (Evangelicals). There's even a big difference between 27% and 39%. Especially if you focus just on the Republican coalition, it sure seems like evangelicals form the biggest problem.

Another and perhaps even more significant issue is that lots of Christians see Mormons as non-Christian, and this is more common among evangelicals, apparently. My suspicion, although I don't have any polls to link, is that evangelicals are more likely to care that a candidate is, in their opinion, non-Christian. For example, technically speaking, I don't really think Mormons are Christian due to certain theological inconsistencies, but I don't care at all, I'm happy to vote for a non-Christian. The public statements of many evangelicals make me think they wouldn't agree and thus even those who have positive opinions of Mormons might be less likely to vote for them.

That said, I'm not convinced this is such bad news for Romney, as I think a certain degree of this is unfamiliarity and he could probably deal with a lot of this sentiment. To the extent he can't, I'd assume it would be deepest in certain groups the Republican wouldn't be getting anyway (people who think Mormons are too devout or too extreme in their religion and are suspicious of Mormons in a way they might be suspicious of certain kinds of religious Catholics or evangelicals, people who tend to be a smaller group and among the coalition on the left) and -- more troubling and probably why Sarah considers it significant -- evangelicals.

Last edited by stephanie; 10-11-2011 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:56 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Dave Weigel thinks that some pastor talking about "Muslim pedophilia" is completely nuts. I do not know what this pastor had to say about Muslims, but if he said that the 'prophet' Muhammad was a pedophile, he would be right.

Most Muslims are not pedophiles (unlike most "most Muslims"-statements, this one is actually accurate), obviously, but thanks to the fact that the best man who ever lived (as Muslims see him) had sex with a 9-year-old girl, any Muslim who does want an underage bridge has a ready excuse: why, you aren't going condemn me for what the prophet did, are you?

It's good to be a prophet, especially if you have reprehensible urges. You can get away with anything. Ask Muhammad. Ask Warren Jeffs, another prophet.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:34 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Most Muslims are not pedophiles (unlike most "most Muslims"-statements, this one is actually accurate), obviously, but thanks to the fact that the best man who ever lived (as Muslims see him) had sex with a 9-year-old girl, any Muslim who does want an underage bridge has a ready excuse: why, you aren't going condemn me for what the prophet did, are you?
As whburgess (I think) noted, this excuse is actually not going to fly with other Muslims; there's a (to you and I fanciful) explanation as to why it was okay for Mohammed, but not any of his modern followers that's widely accepted by Muslims.

If the goal is to find a philosophy or religion in which the adherents can't construct an excuse for their bad behavior, pretty much everything is going to fall short.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:49 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
As whburgess (I think) noted, this excuse is actually not going to fly with other Muslims; there's a (to you and I fanciful) explanation as to why it was okay for Mohammed, but not any of his modern followers that's widely accepted by Muslims.

If the goal is to find a philosophy or religion in which the adherents can't construct an excuse for their bad behavior, pretty much everything is going to fall short.
But as you yourself state in the bolded part, the people constructing excuses are the good Muslims (at least, on this particular issue), who try to find a religious excuse for their good behavior (i.e., disapproving of pedophilia).

In this case, there are some Christians/Jews who show comparable behavior, those who approve of the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. That's also extremely troubling, and I don't think moral people would make excuses for such behavior are decent people, even if they say that it would not be justified today.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:54 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
In this case, there are some Christians/Jews who show comparable behavior, those who approve of the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. That's also extremely troubling, and I don't think moral people would make excuses for such behavior are decent people, even if they say that it would not be justified today.
Meh. I honestly find it difficult to be taht worked up about the Amalekites; a more commonly held view among Christians would be (say) Abraham's willingness and plan to sacrifice Isaac. I actually know many Christians, good people, who hold the view you noted above. It actually doesn't affect how I see them in the least. They aren't going to apply this to any real world things, it's not going to affect how they treat people today, and it's not going to make them excuse people who engage in this kind of thing today.

Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:05 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Meh. I honestly find it difficult to be taht worked up about the Amalekites; a more commonly held view among Christians would be (say) Abraham's willingness and plan to sacrifice Isaac. I actually know many Christians, good people, who hold the view you noted above. It actually doesn't affect how I see them in the least. They aren't going to apply this to any real world things, it's not going to affect how they treat people today, and it's not going to make them excuse people who engage in this kind of thing today.

Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.
What was Abraham trying to do? Save his own skin (no pun intended) from God's wrath by killing his own son. Anyone who would see that as praiseworthy is an immoral person. The trouble with such Christians is that they do not recognize morality as being independent from their divinity. Which means that, should they get it into their heads that their God wants them to do something that is immoral, they will do it. They may not be doing evil right now, but the potential is definitely there.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-11-2011, 04:28 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
What was Abraham trying to do? Save his own skin (no pun intended) from God's wrath by killing his own son. Anyone who would see that as praiseworthy is an immoral person. The trouble with such Christians is that they do not recognize morality as being independent from their divinity. Which means that, should they get it into their heads that their God wants them to do something that is immoral, they will do it. They may not be doing evil right now, but the potential is definitely there.
I understand why you don't like it, but like I said, I have enough trouble finding reasons to like/dislike people in things that have happened in the last hundred years.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-11-2011, 03:26 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
But as you yourself state in the bolded part, the people constructing excuses are the good Muslims (at least, on this particular issue), who try to find a religious excuse for their good behavior (i.e., disapproving of pedophilia).

In this case, there are some Christians/Jews who show comparable behavior, those who approve of the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites, for example. That's also extremely troubling, and I don't think moral people would make excuses for such behavior are decent people, even if they say that it would not be justified today.
But to the extent that you condemn all Muslims who attempt to explain away Mohammed's marriage without claiming that such action would be acceptable to themselves or others today, shouldn't you condemn all Christians who refuse to say that God's demands re the Amalekites are either (a) wrong (meaning that God is wrong and thus contrary to the notion of God within pretty much all mainstream Christianity), or (b) not an accurate reflection of any real demand (meaning that anyone who attempted to maintain a "literally true" or even more traditional notion of inspiration of scriptures would run afoul of it)? Doesn't affect me, but it would probably be a problem for a significant majority of US Christians.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:53 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
But to the extent that you condemn all Muslims who attempt to explain away Mohammed's marriage without claiming that such action would be acceptable to themselves or others today, shouldn't you condemn all Christians who refuse to say that God's demands re the Amalekites are either (a) wrong (meaning that God is wrong and thus contrary to the notion of God within pretty much all mainstream Christianity), or (b) not an accurate reflection of any real demand (meaning that anyone who attempted to maintain a "literally true" or even more traditional notion of inspiration of scriptures would run afoul of it)? Doesn't affect me, but it would probably be a problem for a significant majority of US Christians.
Don't I? I don't think someone who justifies genocide, even one that happened in the past, can be a moral person. I have even seen fundamentalists give truly chilling explanations for this genocide, that look very much like Nazi justifications for the Holocaust. Apparently, the Amalekites were not simply immoral, they were genetically different in a way that made them wicked. So you can't even leave the children alive, because they would grow up to be monsters.

I also don't think that this is a problem for any mainstream Christian - Catholics, mainline protestants, etc. If you can accept evolution, then you can (in fact, you must) accept the idea that something so immoral cannot possibly be the command of a good God.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:06 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Don't I?
I don't know -- you don't seem to call out Christians on this basis all that often or to note that similar arguments apply to many Christians when you are making those arguments about Islam (ironically, I suspect the Christians to whom it applies are often ones who would nod along to your argument about Mohammed and his marriage, for example, without seeing the extent to which it applies to them).

Quote:
I don't think someone who justifies genocide, even one that happened in the past, can be a moral person. I have even seen fundamentalists give truly chilling explanations for this genocide, that look very much like Nazi justifications for the Holocaust. Apparently, the Amalekites were not simply immoral, they were genetically different in a way that made them wicked. So you can't even leave the children alive, because they would grow up to be monsters.
Yes, I've heard such arguments too, and know some conservative Jews who will justify it in a problematic way also.

On the other hand, I've seen others dance around it to try and square it with a particular idea about the Bible in ways that I find problematic and rather immoral when it comes to the particular incidents, but which does not suggest to me that they would defend genocide in any other context. I suspect this is what miceelf is thinking of too.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-13-2011, 01:40 PM
apple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I don't know -- you don't seem to call out Christians on this basis all that often or to note that similar arguments apply to many Christians when you are making those arguments about Islam (ironically, I suspect the Christians to whom it applies are often ones who would nod along to your argument about Mohammed and his marriage, for example, without seeing the extent to which it applies to them).
Probably. But we don't really have fundamentalist Christians here, do we? Also, the subject rarely comes up, unlike Islam. I also think that the two cases are not exactly parallel - Muhammad is rather central to Islam, while the Amalekites are something of a footnote in Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Yes, I've heard such arguments too, and know some conservative Jews who will justify it in a problematic way also.

On the other hand, I've seen others dance around it to try and square it with a particular idea about the Bible in ways that I find problematic and rather immoral when it comes to the particular incidents, but which does not suggest to me that they would defend genocide in any other context. I suspect this is what miceelf is thinking of too.
Of course. But my main problem is not that they might defend genocide in other contexts. Genocide is rather taboo in our days, so that is unlikely. But approving of even one genocide shows that these people do not have a moral compass. It would be troubling even if it did not lead to other immorality, but I think it does. Not that the approval per se causes immorality, but it is a sign that this person does not have a moral compass. The underlying problem is a "might makes right" interpretation of divinity.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-13-2011, 01:56 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Values Added: Fiddlesticks! (Sarah Posner & David Weigel)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apple View Post
Probably. But we don't really have fundamentalist Christians here, do we?
No, not as regular posters, although we do have some who seem anxious to defend any position they might take.

Quote:
I also think that the two cases are not exactly parallel - Muhammad is rather central to Islam, while the Amalekites are something of a footnote in Christianity.
I think they are parallel -- in the one case you are defending something bad because Mohammed did it, in the other who are defending something bad because God did it (or told others to do it). In both cases you might explain it away so that one couldn't make the argument that similar acts would ever be okay in contemporary society (the argument that Aisha was uniquely mature for her age or that girls in that age matured earlier, the argument that the Amelekites were uniquely bad and unlike any other people or the argument that the Promised Land is special and thus the actions to obtain it at particular points in time were justified but don't translate to current times).

Now, I don't think these are good arguments, and I would take issue theologically with Christians who insisted on the latter, but I don't think they are troubling with regard to the person's moral compass in other matters. They are just weird set aside issues, because the person needs to cling to some inconsistent POV (that God is the author of morality and perfect and the scriptures are literally true and inerrant in a particular way in the Christian context). I find it MUCH more troubling when people give up these rather lame rationales and actually argue that these kinds of things mean that similar acts are moral in the current world. I have had the occasional fundamentalist make such arguments and did find that troubling.

Quote:
The underlying problem is a "might makes right" interpretation of divinity.
This would actually be part of my theological objection.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.