On 11/14/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> It isn't about voting for the "right" party, though - inasmuch as a party
>> doesn't put belief and ideology before demonstrable facts.
>
> Tell that to the marines. ;-)
>
Or any parties.

>> We expect our doctors to be competent when they provide us care.
>>
>
> Hope our doctors...
>
Unless you are, say, Ireland, where you kill a woman, because the 
"Catholic law" says you can save the mother, if needed, but not if the 
baby still has a heart beat. The problem, of course, being the 
definitions of a) endangered and b) heartbeat. Apparently.. "Won't 
live", doesn't count for the later, and the former... well, that only 
counts once septis has set in, and her odds of surviving, even if you do 
something, has been reduced to near 0. Makes you wonder.. If appendixes 
where "sacred", would you have to wait until they burst to remove them too?

One hopes, but isn't at all encouraged, that this will result in 
"something" happening as a consequence.

>> That evolution is real, for example.  That climate
>> change is happening.  That these things aren't "from the devil" but are
>> in fact the way the world works, and that we have to actually /deal/ with
>> those issues.
>>
>
> I think that is more of an American viewpoint. In Europe only "Big
> Business" supporters would even say that.
>
>
Haven't looked at Australia then? Mind, that isn't Europe, but, still. 
Wackos every place. What is worse, a study on the subject showed that 
both skeptics and people that denied climate change, overestimated the 
percentage of the population holding the, "We think its fake.", view. 
The skeptics thought it was as much as 20%, the anti-climate change 
people thought it was more like 45%. The real number was like.. under 
10%, but I don't remember the exact number. What differed the most is 
the refusal of the anti-climate change people in even accepting that 
there was a consensus, at all, among scientists. Bets on the numbers of 
creationism being similar...

>> - does make for better/more informed voters.  For example, many
>> who see combat in the military are unlikely to send others into combat
>
> I am gobsmacked with that one. The lions most likely believe that but
> the donkeys certainly don't. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys
>
Maybe in Europe.. Over here, it seems like being shot at, and almost 
killed makes one almost as great a hero as throwing a football, and the 
ones that have been in combat think the military is, "too small", and we 
haven't had, "enough wars". This isn't the case of all of them, or even 
a majority, of course, but.. those people are not the ones running for 
office, on the stance that, among all their other idiocies, "We are 
undermining our ability to spread fear to all the people that will then 
attack us, since they don't fear us any more." Uh.. yeah, and somehow I 
can't be surprised we are seeing a remake of Red Dawn, where the high 
school team is the Wolverines. Apparently, only American's fight like 
cornered animals, when invaded, or abused, or treated like shit, or 
threatened, or our professed saviors side with the nutcase next door, 
because they offered an oil deal. Sigh...

In any case, no.. A lot of the people I have seen that have been, "in 
combat", and vote conservative, are completely bloody nuts, and have no 
problem at all getting more people (as long as its someone else this 
time) killed in wars. If this was a criteria for having someone want to 
avoid them, Europe would have found peace during the middle ages, when 
*everyone* was at war with everyone else. Bigger weapons has only scared 
"some" of the people out of this sort of bullshit, "We can win, with 
acceptable casualties!", thinking.

Post a reply to this message