[Rhodes22-list] Re spect

Sun Oct 26 02:00:19 EDT 2008

Has anybody seen the movie Religilous"?  Just curious about reactions.

Chris G
Oh and for andrew C  "Forza Napoli"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Bradley" <dwbrad at gmail.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 Email List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Re spect

> I agree that it's a crude test at best but a useful discussion point.
> Also agree on polls - I was a quant major and started my career in
> market research, so was able to interpret results with the best of
> them but also know how to produce (or nowawdays buy) valid research.
>
> Let me see if I can take a shot at a middle ground definition.
> Believing in God is mainstream America.  Asking for God's blessing in
> sending troops to battle is very mainstream America.  Saying it's
> God's will that we win the war in Irag stretches it for some (I, for
> one, find that offensive to my religous beliefs).  Invoking God's will
> in the name of some other state project (I can't remember what it was,
> but let's just say for argument that it was the bridge) would make
> many folks think that person was extreme in their religious beliefs
> and it's wrong to mix politics and religion.  Some might think that
> person was a religious (fill in the blank - there are better words
> than kook).  Who's to say where is the "right" place to draw the line?
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:
> > I suspect Brad was talking about Fiscal issues, and that put me pretty
> > close in the middle. I suspect though, that the scoring is off. I don't
> > think you'll see many "socially moderate conservatives" on the list, or
> > anywhere else. I think THAT was the point.
> >
> > In addition, many of the socially questions didn't have answers that fit
> > what I wanted. I tended to take more conservative answers than really
> > fit my belief:
> >
> > For instance:
> > Civil unions should be an option for the gay community, but the term
> > marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
> >        We need a Constitutional Amendment to protect the institution of
> > marriage and define it as an act between a man and woman.
> >        Gay & lesbian couples deserve the right to marry and receive the
same
> > legal benefits as heterosexual couples.
> >        Individual States should have the choice of whether to recognize
gay &
> > lesbian couples.
> >        No Opinion
> >
> >
> > The first option and the third are completely compatible:
> > I believe MARRIAGE should be reserved for heterosexual, and CIVIL UNIONS
> > should be allowed, if a state so desires. However, I couldn't choose
> > both, so I went with the first. I wonder how many points the "other way"
> > would have skewed it had I selected option 3.
> >
> >        Government should be primarily focused on security and/or
regulatory
> > issues and should reduce its role in providing social services.
> >        Providing social services ranging from school lunches to Medicare
is a
> > primary function of government.
> >        The government should be actively involved in supporting social
> > services, but should do so primarily through grants to and support of
> > private organizations.
> >        Government-provided social services are important, but current
levels
> > are far too high.
> >        No Opinion
> >
> >
> > This one is poorly structured:
> > #1 is clearly the answer (for me), because it said "primarily". however,
> > #4 also mirrors my view.
> >
> >        The government should regulate the content of television and
radio
> > broadcast on public airwaves to reduce the violence and/or sex on
> > broadcasts.
> >        The government should let television and radio determine their
own
> > content. Individuals can make their own viewing and listening choices.
> >        The government should provide economic incentives for
corporations to
> > focus on more family-friendly programming.
> >        Big media conglomerates have far too much control of the nation's
> > airwaves and are too cozy with government.
> >        No Opinion
> >
> >
> > #1 is out, because it said "reduce". I don't think we have a particular
> > problem with TV right now that needs MORE government intervention. At
> > the same time, I think regulation is necessary. I picked "no opinion"
> > because none of these fi my view.
> >
> >        A free market will naturally regulate the issues most important
to
> > Americans. Government should work to de-regulate industries as much as
> > possible.
> >        The excessive environmental regulations placed on business are
> > counterproductive and only hurt the economy.
> >        Regulation is necessary to protect both our safety and the
environment
> > from corporations only concerned with net profit.
> >        Regulations are a healthy strategy for long-term growth while
> > protecting all members of society.
> >        No Opinion
> >
> >
> > This is way too vague, and poorly worded, it doesn't define
> > "regulation". The current anti-monopoly laws are a form of "regulation",
> > I think we need them.
> > #2 is self-affirming. By that, I mean they use the word "excessive". If
> > it's excessive, by definition it is too much (that's what the word
means)
> > #3 assumes that coporations are only concerned with "net profit"
> > #4 doesn't define "regulations" well enough. Obviously, the "excessive"
> > stuff from #2 should be done away with, but the overall statement
> > doesn't fit my view.
> >
> > So, I decided to stop "debating and thinking" on this one, and "Just
> > believe" that "no opinion" is going to have to do.
> >
> > =====
> > Overall, I don't think the poll is worded in a way that really reflects
> > the type of "middle of the road" attitudes that Brad was talking about.
> >
> > Nothing about whether or not believing in God made you a "religious
> > kook". Nothing about whether is was a good thing that 20% of taxpayers
> > pay 68% of the total taxes.
> >
> > I could go on, but I think you see my point.
> >
> > I'm really not a big believer in polls. My statistical analysis class in
> > college made it pretty clear that you can get you want - Tell me the
> > numbers, and I'll from the questions to get 'em.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Bradley wrote:
> >> Along this thread, I was a registered Republican for over 20 years
> >> until I felt the GOP stopped majoring on economics and started telling
> >> me how to live.  Moving to NC when Jesse Helms was still running
> >> things was a tipping point for me, and I haven't seen a reason to come
> >> back since.
> >>
> >> Herb, it looks like I over-stated your relative position but not by a
> >> whole lot.  Did your scores surprise you?  Do you feel you represent
> >> the middle of America, as asserted by Brad?  I truly have no issues
> >> with the diversity on this list - it's what makes it interesting and
> >> fun.  But I try to go into the discussions with a desire to understand
> >> others' views as much as assert my own.  Just wanted to close the loop
> >> on this.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> It's a very "special" kind of Republican.
> >>>
> >>> Good memory though, I had forgotten about that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> pdgrand at nospam.wmis.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ben,
> >>>>
> >>>> I thought you stated somewhere earlier that you were a Republican
except
> >>>> for this election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Took the test
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Non-fiscal issues- moderate liberal 34; fiscal issues-moderate
liberal 33
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ben C.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> hparsons wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a *Strong Conservative (94)*.
> >>>>>> On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a *Moderate Conservative (72)*.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Robert Skinner wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No surprises here.
> >>>>>>> On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (32).
> >>>>>>> On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (27).
> >>>>>>> /Robert
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David Bradley wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The past day's exchange got me thinking about what does it mean
to be
> >>>>>>>> moderate and what does it mean to be extreme and who among us
really
> >>>>>>>> represents the "middle" of America (per your comment, Brad).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think the stats would say the middle of America in political
> >>>>>>>> spectrum terms is undecided at the moment on who to vote for.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So I did a quick search on "politcal spectrum test" and tried one
of
> >>>>>>>> the self-tests (not to be confused with the Asshole self-test).
I
> >>>>>>>> have no idea how valid or invalid the methodology might be but I
> >>>>>>>> thought it was interesting and it pegged me right where I see
myself
> >>>>>>>> (see the test output here):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (26).
> >>>>>>>> On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (49).
> >>>>>>>> Your score is on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being fully liberal
and
> >>>>>>>> 100 being fully conservative.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here is the link:  http://www.politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Give it a try.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dave
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list
go to
> >>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
to
> >>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> View this message in context:
> >>>>>
http://www.nabble.com/...-failure-of-leadership-or-leading-...-tp20084939p20143646.html
> >>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
to
> >>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> > __________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Bradley
> +1.206.234.3977
> dwbrad at gmail.com
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________