Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

"People get deeply attached to their beliefs, We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs"

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

nmg_no

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Not when you have shitstains like Randall Terry injecting themselves into the debate.

"Health Care Debate not based on logic"

Neither is the bill.

Bowel Movement,

Did you know that Obama is BLACK?

Or that he is NOT AN AMERICAN?

You probably haven't heard that he is a MUSLIM!!!

Now run and hide under you bed for 7 1/2 years with the rest of your pants pissing buddies. We'll call you when it is safe to come out.

The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

I've never seen this happen on the DR. LOL

Good post.

With your messiah in the WH it will not be safe for anyone.

The lemmings of the messiah are running headlong to their death.

Has anyone actually read the bill?

The lemmings of the messiah are running headlong to their death.

As are the lemmings of the right.

You really should read the article as it describes you to a T.

Has anyone actually read the bill?

Have you?

No I have not. Anyone who would be in favor of this when they do not know the full details is an idiot, much like the liblemmings.

I love how the study was done only with Republicans. Very scientific.

Has anyone actually read the bill?

Please don't pretend you have read it and can fully understand the nuances and consequences contained in it.

Any bill that needs thousands of pages is worthless government creation. It also reflects our represantives view of their importance to "us".

Anyone who would be in favor of this when they do not know the full details is an idiot, much like the liblemmings.

Your bias is showing.

Anyone who forms a solid opinion for or against something without knowing at least some details is an idiot.

Rejecting something in ignorance is just as bad as accepting something in ignorance.

Karl Marx for instance.. was an atheist that thought life was from accidental origin.. thought that the ownership of private property was the root of injustice and wrong, and thought that state or public ownership was the solution.. His political views reflected that worldview.

...is an atheist that thought life was from accidental origin...
- The Left

...thought that the ownership of private property was the root of injustice and wrong
- The Left

...thinks state or public ownership was the solution..
- The Left

Rejecting something in ignorance is just as bad as accepting something in ignorance.

#10 | Posted by jpw

I disagree, I would never buy a home sight unseen or without doing a title search on it.

I disagree, I would never buy a home sight unseen or without doing a title search on it.

But you more than likely wouldn't reject a house without doing the same.

But you more than likely wouldn't reject a house without doing the same.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2009-08-26 01:30 PM

In this case, JPW. All I need to know to reject the current Health Care bills being considered is that the Obama Administration has been trying to rush them through under the rationale that we are in a crisis and need to reduce costs ASAP. The CBO, however, has said that none of these Bills do that. Furthermore, using said need to rush as an excuse, it seems that nobody responsible for voting for any of the Bills have actually read them yet we are expected to just go along with it. If that wasn't bad enough, they also won't release the changes that have been made to the Bills, so at this point there is no way to examine exactly what is in them.

Again, to follow the analogy above... yes, I WOULD reject a house if I was being asked to buy it sight unseen and simply upon good faith. It would be stupid to not reject it. Especially if what little you do know about said house contradicts some of the things the people trying to sell it to you are saying.

I agree with everything you said, Mooman. However, you're rejecting the bill because of the conditions of the acceptance, not the bill itself.

However, you're rejecting the bill because of the conditions of the acceptance, not the bill itself.

In this case the two are inextricable. It is impossible to accept or reject on the Bill itself because we aren't being allowed to see the whole Bill. This is BECAUSE of a "condition of acceptance" as you put it.

As I said, it is like being asked to buy a house where the seller refuses to let you see it first and you know that even the seller hasn't seen it. Again, it is a perfectly reasonable response.

Then, as I said, there is also the trust factor. When certain claims have been made that have been proven to be false, yet the people making the claims are still wanting you to buy site unseen and asking you to trust them... I call bullshit on the whole process. No sale.

Again, it is a perfectly reasonable response.

Then, as I said, there is also the trust factor. When certain claims have been made that have been proven to be false, yet the people making the claims are still wanting you to buy site unseen and asking you to trust them... I call bullshit on the whole process. No sale.

Again, I agree with putting a halt on the process.

But I'm willing to separate the bill from the process.

I've rejected this "get it through now" process from the beginning, but have not rejected the bill. I've looked at the topic more suspiciously due to the political BS surrounding it, but that has not lead to an outright dismissal or acceptance.

Again, I agree with putting a halt on the process.

But I'm willing to separate the bill from the process.

Fair enough.

I've rejected this "get it through now" process from the beginning, but have not rejected the bill.

This is where we differ. I have no problem rejecting the bill just based off of what is known for sure. The arguments for it were based off of a need to help the uninsured, and reduce costs. This is actually separate from the argument that the situation is critical and therefor needs to be rushed. The first two rationales for the bill are ideological ones, however the last argument is designed to stifle ideological arguments.

The need to help the uninsured is moot because there are other ways to help them by modifying the existing structure.

The second argument is moot because it has already been proven that despite the claim that the bills are intended to reduce costs, in fact they don't.

Just based on those alone I can reject the Bills currently being offered. No other details need be known.

Not when PUBS lie................

Not when PUBS lie................

Or when Democrats lie. Want to compare notes? I am sure we can both provide solid examples of it on both sides. For example, Obama's claims that the Bills are "budget neutral".

Both sides lie...hmm.

Bush- I'm a compassionate conservative

Obama- A vote for me is a vote for change


Up, you are right: they are.

"Please don't pretend you have read it and can fully understand the nuances and consequences contained in it."

OK, fair enough. Now, don't you pretend you have read your entire health care insurance policy and that you understand all the nuances and consequences contained it it. Trust me, the folks who wrote your health care policy were no less shady than the folks who wrote the health care bill. BTW, we don't have a health care bill yet to read, we have three committee recommendations, and a fourth coming from the Senate which will all have to be negotiated down to a final bill so reading it now would be sort of a waste of time. YOu would have to read about 3000 pages of legalese and then wait to see what the Senate committee produces.
Little inconvenient detail.

"I love how the study was done only with Republicans. Very scientific." CHICKENSHIT

They wanted to study an endangered species...Republicans.

Now, don't you pretend you have read your entire health care insurance policy and that you understand all the nuances and consequences contained it it. Trust me, the folks who wrote your health care policy were no less shady than the folks who wrote the health care bill.

the folks who wrote the policy had to show it to the state insurance department and had to get it approved.

you know.....the govt working for the people.

in any case, you suck to the last drop everything being spurted to you in this bill.

There should be no healthcare debate at all. The Dumbos run both houses of Congress, and the White House. If there's anyone squeamish about what should be in the bill, it's the libbies who are the problem.

Sorry if that's not based on "logic". But I know what one hundred minus forty is.

Has anyone actually read the bill?


Have you?

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2009-08-26 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


No I have not.

#7 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-08-26 12:39 PM | Reply

So then your opposition of the bill is based on what you have been told. That would make you a rtardlemming.

"So then your opposition of the bill is based on what you have been told. That would make you a rtardlemming."

It matters not what the bill says. If the government is going to be controlling a large portion of the U.S. economy in ANY fashion, I'm opposed. THAT is the main objection of true conservatives.

726,

Have you read all 1000+ pages of the bill?

"You Won't Get TedCare Under ObamaCare: Ted Kennedy's Brain Cancer Dream Team (Private Planes, Copters, Police Escorts, Mozart of Brain Surgeons)"

www.debbieschlussel.com

You wouldn't get it now, either KBM.

That is, unless you're as wealthy and famous as the Kennedys in real life.

Did you know that Obama is BLACK?


Or that he is NOT AN AMERICAN?


You probably haven't heard that he is a MUSLIM!!!


Now run and hide under you bed for 7 1/2 years with the rest of your pants pissing buddies. We'll call you when it is safe to come out.


#3 | Posted by axe at 2009-08-26 11:29 AM


OR maybe you have heard that there will be no cuts in medicare when there are actually in the neighborhood of 189 billion........

or maybe you have heard that YOU WILL BE ABLE To keep the insurance you have now

WELL unless your employer goes tothe govt option or even co opt and you then have to go with it or be FINED 2 1/2 of your income...NO this isnt some info from soviet russia or cuba...

or maybe you heard that AARP was on board

OOPS>.sorry another whopper from the fuckin liar president....

No, the health care plan is not based on logic.


OOPS>.sorry another whopper from the fuckin liar president....

#31 | Posted by afkabl2

Alka-Seltzer, when are you ever gonna learn? Are you over-compensating for all that time you should have been saying 'that lying president' but didn't?

I'm no particular Obama lover but I see nothing to suggest he is a pathological liar. If you are counting not keeping campaign promises, all politicians are guilty of that.

I personally hope this health care bill gets voted down until it can be re-written to do what it's supposed to do. And a way to pay for it is devised.

I'm all in favor of universal health care but you have to be crazy to think it will be free. This thing they have now was written by the pharm. companies.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable