Iamon lyme:

> If you fear being manipulated by conscious/unconscious attempts to persuade you, the remedy is easy.. decide for yourself, based on your own reasoning, if what you are being told is true or not. No one can manipulate your thoughts unless you allow it.

Nobody can tell you what to think, but over a lifetime you can be taught to think a certain way. People can be indoctrinated and they don't even know it. If it were not possible to influence the way people think, advertising would be a dead industry. You take a piece of propaganda. You repeat it over and over. You repepat it so much, that people grow to believe it is true. Then fear is a powerful motivator. Fear is the most primal of instincts. It triggers our survival mechanisms. Fear combined with propaganda is the most powerful way to control the masses. "You are poor because the evil Jew bankers are taking your money while you work like a slave." "The capitalist counterrevolutionaries want to return our country to its former state in which the rich aristocrats had everything while we had nothing. We have to stop the enemies of the revolution at all costs." "The godless communists are bend on world domination. They want to attack us with their missiles. We have to build bomb shelters and root out the communist threat in our midst. Are you a member of the communist party? If you are, you are godless and unAmerican."

The ignorant masses bought all this propaganda and so they became antisemites, radical revolutionaries and fascist anticommunists. Fear overcame reason, often with a few speeches and a propaganda campaign.

At some point every modern government has used fear and propaganda to make people think and believe in a way that is politically and economically convenient. To say that people can reason through propaganda is rather naive because propaganda and fearmongering easily overcome reason. It is like saying that everyone can reason through a book of tensor calculus. Not everyone is equipped to reason through, because the educational system failed to teach people how to read and reason while casting fear and prejudice aside.

Übergeek 바둑이: ignorant masses.. now where have I heard that before? No one who talks about the 'ignorant masses' assumes they are part of that group. Self deception makes it easier for the so called thought manipulators to do their thing.

Iamon lyme:

> No one who talks about the 'ignorant masses' assumes they are part of that group.

But aren't we all ignorant in one way or another? I am sure that before the 9-11 attack a lot of Americans knew a lot about Islam. And after 9-11 they know even more.

The same can be said about communism. I am sure that during the Cold War people in western Capitalist countries really made an effort to learn about Marxism. I am sure they all sat down to read Marx, Engles and Lenin, then based on the "reasoning" that you talk about people made up their minds as to whether it was good or bad. Western governments sold anti-communist propaganda, and people really made an effort to analyze and reason what was going on. There never was any fearmongering involved.

Now we have a budget crisis. I am sure the vast mojority of the American public went to analyze the action of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. They they carefully looked at the budet for the last 30 years and figured out how the money was being spent and where the cuts should happen so as to do what is best for the economy.

The public really, really does it best to educate itself so that they can analyze and reason political and economic events around them. Then when those in power try to sell fear and propaganda, the masses are prepared to say "You fearmongering liars, we got you all figured out!"

Am I a part of the "ignorant masses"? The answer is, we all are. I am the worst kind. I am educated. I read and study politics and economics. I reason theourgh the lies and manipulation. Yet I do nothing to change anything. I am an ignorant hypocrite who is all talk and no action. But then, if I took action, I would probably a revolutionary of sorts, because capitalism can never change unless it is dismantled completely. Then we get Communism, whether Leninist as in the Soviet Union, or the brand sold by Deng Xiaoping in China. Either way, the masses remain disaffected and alienated, and one elite is replaced by another. So I lower my head and say: "Nothing can be done." Those wihtout an ideological compass merely become terrorists and use violence to channel their social discontent. Like the idiot neo-nazi in Norway. Incapable of admitting that the problem is capitalism itself, he fills himself with hatred of socialism and goes on to attack the ruling left-wing party.

The US is not stuck in a debt problem. This is nothing new. For the last 150 years or so bankers have been exploiting developing nations and forcing debt defaults by governments. The only thing that is new is that now it is happening to the one country that used banking to its own advantage for the last 100 years. For most of the 20th century the USA used the debt of other countries to gain political and economic advantage. Now it is America's turn to experience what Third World Countries have experienced for the last 100 years. The USA is now in serious trouble, a lot more serious than people realize. Both political parties are going to come out pointing the finger at each other and spoon feeding their propaganda to the masses. The public won't even realize that the real problem is the fascist Military industrial complex that drains billions from the Treasury, and rich and powerful that give tax breaks to themselves. People won't even realize that BOTH political parties are to blame, because both parties play the same dirty game.

Übergeek 바둑이: I can see where this is going, so just as a heads up maybe I should explain what I mean. First of all, the term 'ignorant masses' isn't just insulting, it's usually used as a means to an end. If you agree with the premise (ignorant masses) you can then assume you are not a part of that group. Thought control is just another way of saying con job. It often works because it appeals to greed (whay you get out if), guilt (do it for the children), or to whatever values and ideals the con man believes is important to you. It doesn't matter if the term ignorant masses is accurate or not, all someone has to do to pursuade you to their way of thinking is to toss the term out and let you do the rest.. obviously, you are not a part of that group, you are part of the group who, whether you know it or not, has taken the first successful step to drawing you into their way of thinking. Being educated and informed is meaningless if all you are dealing with is raw facts and information.. besides, information is usually slanted and 'facts' seem to have little to do with what is true, and are subject to what a majority is willing to believe.

Iamon lyme: We are all ignorant. It's a matter of a finite brain divided by infinite knowledge... In the end we all have something we no no-thing about. Thought control does not mean con job. Some people have to persuade others they are right just to be right, ie a matter of insecurity over beliefs like we have with some religious sects that say 'the word of God/Allah (whatever the name) cannot be questioned.

"Being educated and informed is meaningless if all you are dealing with is raw facts and information.."

No.. there are fields of study such as statistics that aid in dealing with such. How they can be manipulated, that extreme figures tend to be 'blips', and a feel for bull when someone says it means "X" when more factors are implicit that makes "X" untrue, part true or "XYZ"

Let's hope that the stories Anders Behren Breivik was not working with others as he has now said. All these years after 9/11 everybody has been focusing on Muslim terrorists, yet forgetting about the older terrorist groups. Nationalists using Islam as a recruitment card for various right wing neo nazi and ultra conservative hate groups just spouting their version of hate that they complain the Muslim hate groups might get better at than them.

We've had terrorism in Europe since the end of WWII.

Tuesday: From when Obama was campaigning

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-02/politics/obama.missed.votes_1_obama-spokesman-bill-burton-iranian-revolutionary-guard-rothenberg-political-report?_s=PM:POLITICS

Iamon lyme:

Straight from the dictionary:

Ignorant:
Lacking education or knowledge. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge. Unaware or uninformed.

> First of all, the term 'ignorant masses' isn't just insulting, it's usually used as a means to an end. If you agree with the premise (ignorant masses) you can then assume you are not a part of that group.

Maybe I should spare the feelings of the masses, and instead of calling them "ignorant", I can use a politically correct term like "knowledge challenged" or "educationally disadvantaged". Those sanitized terms are less insulting, are they not?

Then I said that I am the worst kind of ignoramus. The kind that knows exactly what is going on, and does nothing to stop it. I merely defeat myself intellectually. All that knowledge is useless if I don't know what to do with it. Yes, I am a aprt of the ignorant masses. We all are. Nobody likes to be called ignorant, yet we all are.

Knowledge is a relative thing. I can give you a good example of how the masses are "ignorant" about something, and then take it for granted.

Take plastic bags. Almost every human being on the planet has used a plastic bag at one point or another. People go shopping, put their things in bags, and go home wihtout even thinking whqt a plastic bag is. However, a chemist sees more than just a plastic bag. A chemist will know that it is made of a polymer called polyethylene. This polymer is made by polymerizing ethene gas with a Ziegler-Natta catalyst embedded inside a zeolite support. A chemist can draw chemical structures, and propose reaction mechanisms. He or she knows about the physical properties of the polymer such as the melting point and the glass point. He or she also knwos that Ziegler and Natta won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their discovery of this family of catalysts that is used to make all plastic bags in the world.

The masses are ignorant in relation to the chemist who knows all about plastic bags.

Likewise, the masses are ignorant about politics and economics. Their sense of knowledge about politics and economics is based on what they see in the media. Newspapers and TV will describe current events, and self-appointed experts (like Glenn Beck) will interpret those events giving them the slant that is convenient either to themselves, or to somebody else.

Yet, when the masses never bother to study the history of political systems and the philosphical basis behind them. People will pass a judgement on demcoracy, socialism, etc. without having taken the time to study or analyze the history and meaning of those things. The perfect example is communism. Just about everybody hates communism, even though all that people know about it is what they heard on TV or on their high school social studies class. I have never met anyone who read Marx's Capital and interpreted according to Hegel's dialectic system. If people did that, it would be impossible for a government like China's to exist, because they ihgt call themselves communist party, but they are nothing more than a form of state capitalism.

Well, ignorant is not an insult. It is merely a fact. All that people need to be happy is enough money for Macdonalds and Walmart. As long as people can consume they have no fighting spirit. Consumer capitalism turns human beings into consuming automatons, always in fear of change or social discontent. So the masses, like a big flock of ostrich, hide their head in the sands of blissful ignorance. It might sound insulting, but it is the sad truth.

The US is about to default its 14.5 trillion dollar debt, and people don't even realize how bad the situation is and how risky it is. Instead of making an effor tto educate the public, politicians are bickering and bringing the world's financial system to the brink of catastrophe. And the masses, lacking knowledge and information, continue blissfully unaware of what impact this could have in their daly lives. This is the perfect example of how the rich and powerful use ignorance to advantage. While the masses sleep, the rich are setting themselves up for huge tax breaks and the fattening of their own pockets at tax payer's expense.

Tuesday: You were trying to make one of your points, without taking into consideration that your golden boy was just as guilty. And of course you wouldn't have brought THAT up.

Tuesday: Who I vote for is between me and the booth, thank you.

rod03801: Can we also take into consideration that the article regarding Bachmann was for a period covering 4 YEARS, and the period in the article covering Obama was just 2 MONTHS.

Bachmann would seem to be a symptomatic vote skipper looking for votes and Obama's record a blip..N' as your article says...

"...Most of the votes Obama missed were for amendments to spending bills, when his vote would not have decided the outcome..."

(V): Hmm, guess you read differently than me.

"By the newspaper's calculation, that's 50 missed votes out of 135 taken by the House since Bachmann officially announced her candidacy June 27"

And the point is, really, that anyone who is in elected office who is running for presidency (regardless of party) is probably going to be slacking at their elected job. (Which, personally, I don't defend)

And of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by her, that the golden boy was just as bad.

rod03801: Guees I just read more and did some math on the dates.

ie Bachmann 4 years and 50 votes missed.... Obama 2 months and a number of votes in just that 2 month period missed.

It's Simple.. maybe it's just me from when I did Statistics and the matter of comparing 2 different time periods. As such the comparison is too dodgy to make any real sense comparing wise.

If the time period on Obama's missed votes was a year or longer then you'd get a fair and informative comparison.

(V): Um, it clearly says 50 missed votes out of 135, SINCE JUNE 27

Deal with it.

That does NOT take into consideration all votes since elected. Been more than that.

The comparison was that he slacked when campaigning too, as does about EVERYone, I'm sure. Gosh, you just argue for the sake of arguing.

rod03801: Yes.. I was not arguing that

I was just saying the comparison data is very vague in relation to time periods and votes missed.

Gosh.. is that to hard to understand, or is it just me 'A' level statistics training.

N' yes everyone misses votes, etc. Sometimes in the UK it's even prearranged, ie no/yes voters paired off.

LOL

Tuesday: "her" is not an insult. Unless you are just LOOKING for things to insult you. Typical of "politcally correct" libs who are offended over everything that can possibly be misconstrued as offensive.

And MY point was, you would NEVER have pointed that out about Obama 3 years ago. When "your" people do something, it's hunky dorry. When "the other ones" do the same thing, it's gotta be put out there as NOT ok.

When in reality, (as I've already said twice, I believe) I would imagine any person who currently holds office (of WHATEVER party), who is campaigning, probably misses more votes than they should. And as I also said, I don't defend that. They are ALL doing their constituents a disservice when this happens.

TuesdayThis is turning to a personal argument. Take it private. Thank you.

rod03801: It is considered bad manners as in talking about someone who is there as if they are not there. It's considered a sign of anger or hate towards the person and just an attempt to disguise it.

Tuesday: http://brainking.com/cz/Board?bc=158&plla=1122525

Pedro Martínez:

Pedro Martínez:
I fail to see the relevance. The point was that it is rude to refer to someone as "she" when that person is in the room, as if they are not there. As this "she" is presumably the lady who has died, she is not in a position to object.

Justaminute: Her point was clear: “You are supposed to use someone's name when referring to them in a conversation with someone else.” I fail to see any further specification there.

Pedro Martínez: It's all hogwash that using a personal pronoun when referring back to someone is bad manners. It's done all the time in formal writing. And in casual conversations such as are done here, things are supposed to be more relaxed. Funny that the persons objecting to the use of personal pronouns have used those pronouns themselves. I counted over a hundred in a quick survey of posts by Jules. He'll have a hundred excuses for his use of the word "she" but still, he (opps) used the same word to which he is now objecting.

This is just another way the left attemps to avoid dealing with an issue where they are clearly wrong. They (opps) don't like their narrative interrupted and when they (dang it) are caught with their pants down (as you have shown in reference to Tuesday), they always go to chapter three: diverting attention away from the real point of an argument. I can't wait to see what they will twist next.

Justaminute: Who died?

Artful Dodger: Right. By now, Tuesday has tried to teach the people on this forum how to use conjunctions (“don't you start a sentence with them!”), prepositions (“don't you end a sentence with them!”) and pronouns (“don't you use them to refer to people in conversations with someone else!”). I can't wait for the other word classes…

Pedro Martínez: Exactly. What's next? One can't use just a single word in as a complete sentence (since a subject/verb is needed). Silly!

Pedro Martínez: We also get lots of spell checking here. Taht's whi I alwaze check mi speling.

Artful Dodger: You better do that. When there's nothing of merit to argue against, typos are always a good reason for argument…

Pedro Martínez: I wonder if it's still proper to call them typos since a typo refers to the mistake one makes when hitting a wrong key on a typewriter. I'm using a keyboard so maybe my mistakes are actually keyos.

Artful Dodger: I stand corrected! … or actually I sit corrected… (and now I lie corrected)

Justaminute:
I guess it depends where you were brought up. If I referred to someone as "she" when I was growing up and they were in the room the response would be "who's she the cat's mother". Meaning you are being rude. It isn't rude to refer the same way about soeone who is not going to over hear the conversation.

Artful Dodger: When talking about someone in the room (or a poster here) "she" is considered rude and bad manners, the same rule does not apply when discussing someone as a topic.

Now you can twist that all you like, but it ain't gonna change 100's of years of English language use and the rules thereof.

(V): Nonsense. The antecedent was clear in the context of the discussion. Therefore the use of the word "she" was not only proper but its use is more common than is the restating of the antecedent. That's why we have rules for pronoun antecedent. When the antecedent is clear, the pronoun is almost always used.

But enlighten us, show us where this is the case and also defend your own use of the word "she" where several hundred times you yourself used that exact pronoun.

Artful Dodger: That you have a problem with English language use is your problem. Learn yourself.. I know I am right as anybody here in the UK will tell you whether Liberal/Conservative or Jedi Knight!!

Justaminute: This forum is an informal conversation "room." Jules was clearly referring to Tuesday in his rejoinder to Rod. Rod replied using the pronoun she that clearly referred back to Tuesday. In the context you are describing, you are correct. In the situation here, Jules and Tuesday are wrong. And they will fail at proving that because there is no such rule against such use of pronouns in a discussion forum.

(V): So what your saying is you can't actually prove what you are claiming. And also you have interviewed everyone in the UK and they all agree with you.

Artful Dodger: No.. I'm saying you just want to argue the point and I'm happy knowing I am right.

instead of conceding that, Jules and Tuesday decided to pick on his use of the word "she."


Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes

November 02, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama makes a campaign stop at Iowa State University on Saturday.

Sen. Barack Obama has missed the most votes of any Democratic presidential hopeful in the Senate over the last two months, including a vote on an Iran resolution he has blasted Sen. Hillary Clinton for supporting.

The Illinois Democrat has missed nearly 80 percent of all votes since September.

The other Democrats in the Senate running for president have missed a high percentage of votes as well.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has missed 68 percent of the votes during the same period, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut 65 percent and Clinton of New York 63 percent.

(V): Just prove your point by showing a link where that rule is stated (since it's been known for over 100 years).

Artful Dodger: *sigh*

Btw.. do you now want to make the statement that all terrorists are Muslim?

(V): And now ladies and gentlemen, since He (jules) cannot prove his point, he now utilizes chapter four: change the subject!!!

Artful Dodger: I don't think it'd be worthwhile going into what is good and bad etiquette with you.