Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (91327)	12/14/2004 12:10:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If this didn't work to explain what I meant, I'll try to explain it in another way. Could you do it in a less patronizing, less pedagogical manner? I'm really not as stupid as you obviously have concluded, simply trying to follow a line which seems increasingly thin and unnecessarily complex. And could you address my point that we don't necessarily vote according to our individual interests but our collective interest or, more properly, probably a combination of the two? And that if we do in fact vote our collective interests, fear of terrorism is for reasons which should be obvious indeed rational? And fear is obviously rational. Any other notion is foolhardy. I don't walk into a bad neighborhood at midnight carrying obvious symbols of wealth even though walking through it might be the shortest course to my destination because I have a rational fear of being mugged. There are countless examples of the rational reasons for fear, but you seem fixated on the post-hoc idea that logic conquers fear, which is fine, but does not negate a rational basis for its existence. And if we are voting our collective interests, it is indeed rational to evaluate our vote based on how we feel a candidate would logically deal with that which we fear, even though it might be an attenuated fear on a personal level. What bloody studies have you read? The ones I've read suggest a myriad of reasons, including fear of terror, for Bush's win. This of course does not fit in with a simplistic Bush-bashing view but, hey, a national election is a very complex thing so it is only natural to expect that the reasons for the result might very well be equally complex. Here are a few of the ones which appear objective: news-service.stanford.edu washingtonmonthly.com You might want to acquaint yourself with them. Fear was a factor, sure, but absolutely positively not the only one. There was fear that Kerry was too indecisive, weak, flexible, dilatory, etc., to deal with terror, and this fear was not necessarily based on mongering but on his record, which amply justified the notion that he was not competent in this field.

To: epicure who wrote (91327)	12/14/2004 9:08:21 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

ionesco, re: << Maybe liberals prioritize risk better- I don't know. The studies I saw just examined the fixation of the red staters (and likely Bush voters) on fear. It's interesting- the psychology behind voter affiliation, or at least I find it interesting.>> IMO, it is only logical that liberals "fear" less than conservatives. For the libs, look ahead, into the unknown, into new territory, while conservatives are reluctant, probably, out of fear to try the new. They like the known, the familiar, the status quo, etc. It is comforting to them. That's why they, the conservatives, like a "big brother" figure "looking out" for them.. And that goes for all societies. For the conservatives in the former USSR were the staunchest of the old party liners. The staunchest in the most fundamentalist religious Muslim societies are known as conservatives. The conservatives when our country was founded were the Tories.. And so it goes as the political definition is: "tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.." So it takes courage to oppose the conservative lineage but in the long run ALL embrace it.. And then the ones that opposed it become "conservative" to the "new" and people LIKE us are moving on to improve.. <g>.. It is all so dynamic and so easy to understand, for an open liberal mind, that is.. :) m