Upvote for the last line.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That was entertaining.

I think this cuts to the core of Republican beliefs and the whole evangelical Christian movement being all about deference to political and religious leadership.

It's clear it even comes at the cost of their core beliefs. Bush was able to run on a non-interventionist foreign policy and quickly change lanes on such a key issue and yet keep the base of the party on the same page. Obama on the other hand is getting assailed from the left for even proposing the loose idea of prolonged detention and military tribunals.

The same is true of religion. Prominent televangelists can get away with saying atrocious things counter to general moderate perceptions of religion without any backlash.

And because of this point of view in their own party, they in turn reflect and expect the same manner of discourse in the Democratic party. When they turn to criticise evolution they insist on calling people who disagree with Darwinists because they assume that any opposing view is propped up by that same dogmatic loyalty.

The same things happens when it turns to politics as seen in this discussion. I mean the guy makes what is a pretty obvious Freudian slip, but his general values stop him from being able to admit what he's really thinking.

I hope to god(and by god I mean Joe Pesci) that Sarah "Palming" Palin runs in every election. It's a sure win for a non-republican.

I, for the most part, really dislike this host. I'm all for the show in general but there's something about the way he communicates with the camera that bothers me. But...

"Because she's a MORON and we love to make fun of her. We love to rub it in her FACE"

May have just won me over. *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

The caller does make a valid point. While jive-talking Palin is fun, there ARE more pressing issues facing the United States than her potential candidacy. All the attention only serves to legitimize her in the eyes of her supporters.

Good Democratic strategists would begin focusing on a few Senate Republicans up for re-election in the fall, and on folks like Mitt Romney.

You know how if something isn't in the news it isn't relevant to the American public? I think they should talk about this palm-reading ditz for the next 2 years constantly, just so the general population will still be able to think 'Hey, this is a woman who isn't intelligent,' when the next election comes around.

>> ^flechette:
You know how if something isn't in the news it isn't relevant to the American public? I think they should talk about this palm-reading ditz for the next 2 years constantly, just so the general population will still be able to think 'Hey, this is a woman who isn't intelligent,' when the next election comes around.


Except most people will think "Hey, I think I saw her mentioned on TV the other night and people were laughing and smiling. I bet she's a great gal. She's got my vote."

And then we all cry.

@RedSky

Ever read this?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Not exactly perfect, but I think the general idea is compelling. That whole "respect for authority" slider is clearly too high for some people.

I usually don't like the parts of TYT videos where the anchors talk, but this one was good.

Haven't read that, but I saw him speaking at TED here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Difference-Between-Democrats-and-Republicans-TED

It'd be interesting to see how these paradigms actually arise in people, to what extent they may even be genetic, and to what extent it's acquired through life and/or reinforced by the social groups people associate with.