Right vs. Wrong (Left)

[LDB]

There's nothing for me to get over. I observed that opposite conditions exist between conservatives and liberals. I observed that it isn't absolute with either group but the tendency is prevalent in each group as I described. I'll gladly take a dollar from anyone who wants to bet the majority of either group are the opposite of how I described them because that's not a bet for me but a sure thing. All of them? No. Over half? No question. It only takes 50.01% to prove and support my thesis. I'm sure the actual number is well above that.

 

[Poorboy]

Quote:
But I Probably Didn't come across the way I Meant to

..... ya think ?

While I don't doubt for a minute that, in hindsight now, it didn't come across the way you would have preferred it to appear, I also don't doubt that the remarks as stated are reflective of your true gut feelings on the matter.



Too ****' funny!!! poorboy you should let greg and layout speak. I can just imagine the cringes on their faces when they see your screen name pop up.

Ya Know What? I Don't Really Give a Fat Babies Butt What anyone thinks about What I Post, Because You, Rlent and Anyone Else Don't Have to Read it! There is a Ignore Button That You Can Use!

 

[layoutshooter]

Ya Know What? I Don't Really Give a Fat Babies Butt What anyone thinks about What I Post, Because You, Rlent and Anyone Else Don't Have to Read it! There is a Ignore Button That You Can Use!

Fat Babies Butt? I never heard that one!!! I like it!!!!

 

[Poorboy]

Fat Babies Butt? I never heard that one!!! I like it!!!!

Just a Little Humor to Address some of The Childish One's

 

[layoutshooter]

There are NOT enough bits in the internet to address ALL the "childish" ones!!! LOL!!!

 

[pelicn]

Turtle, your example of the Time magazine covers is very good, but for me, the opposite effect happened. I see a man that has all the lighting, placement, indirect messages etc, in others words, a fraud. My gut tells me to beware of this man. In the short time that he's been in office, this country is becoming a place I don't recognize. The shift is frightening to me.

 

[DougTravels]

Turtle, your example of the Time magazine covers is very good, but for me, the opposite effect happened. I see a man that has all the lighting, placement, indirect messages etc, in others words, a fraud. My gut tells me to beware of this man. In the short time that he's been in office, this country is becoming a place I don't recognize. The shift is frightening to me.

It's all how you want to evaluate and spin it. Obama is behind the time(s) Mcain is out in front of the time(s) Obama is just a talking head -McCain is a whole person. Those I came up with in 30 seconds. I believe you are just looking too hard on this one Turtle.

 

[greg334]

Didn't Annie Leibovitz shoot that time cover of McCain?

 

[Turtle]

It's all how you want to evaluate and spin it. Obama is behind the time(s) Mcain is out in front of the time(s) Obama is just a talking head -McCain is a whole person. Those I came up with in 30 seconds. I believe you are just looking too hard on this one Turtle.

No, this isn't evaluated spin, Doug. I've studied advertising, secondary messaging, how it works, and why. The goal of such advertising is not to beat you over the head with it, but to allow you to respond to the image in your own emotional way. The above images contain textbook examples of secondary imagery techniques, where one message is given, and then a second, or multiple second, messages are given on a very subtle, and sometimes not-so subtle level.

Like you, I can come up with a dozen additional different interpretations of what those things mean, but none of them would be correct with respect to the neuropsychological manipulation of these techniques. The above points I note were not made up by me out of thin air, they are tried and true advertising techniques to show one image, but to embed another into the mind of the viewer. There are some very sound reasons why things are done the way they are, in advertising magazine covers, packaging, even product placement on store shelves.

The two things you suggest above are from looking at it from a critical, analytical standpoint, but the brain doesn't do that when it sees an image. It responds to the blatant image intellectually, and then responds to the secondary message emotionally. It doesn't take much emotion. You have to stop and take a close look at things to do critical analysis of the secondary message.

These covers weren't presented on the newsstands side-by-side. These photographs were taken specifically to convey a message, one that was reinforced by the cover design. At first glance at the Obama cover, people consciously see the friendly, non-threatening face of Obama. But unconsciously, they see the things I pointed out. Not every one sees all of them, to be sure, but many will, and many more will see it after having glanced at is a few hundred times on news stands and grocery checkout counters.

Some of these types of images have been discussed at length and in great detail, by the very people who designed and created them, in various books and articles.

 

[layoutshooter]

All I saw looking at those two covers were pictures of two very weak candidates. A PUTZ and a PUTZETTE!!

 

[Turtle]

Even the backgrounds have significance. Obama's is a pure, high key white background, known as photographic white vinyl, with a shiny, plastic-like reflective surface to make the white even brighter. It's a standard portraiture technique to make the subject "pop" out at your eyes (and is the staple of Olan Mills Kids photography).

McCain's is a standard flat-black canvas or seamless paper background with a backlight that turns it into the lighter gray radiating darker outwards of the classic professional corporate photo. It's and old established method that conveys standard, reserved, established, corporate, you know, not change.

These photos were not accidents, and the things I point out are not merely after-the-fact coincidences. They are products of some of the standard tools of the trade of mass manipulation.

 

[layoutshooter]

Did you expect anything else? Of course the covers were designed to make a statement. Our "Free Press" was pushing hard to elect Obama. That is why he was not vetted properly. Shoot, he almost did not need to spend any money (he spent a ton) with all the free work done for him by the "free and un-biased" press.

 

[Turtle]

Well, no, I didn't expect anything less. I'm more tuned into this stuff than most, because I hate it when I find myself being manipulated, be it in advertising, the media, a dispatcher, you name it. People talked about the media bias during the election, because it was so blatant and anyone could see it, but I guarantee you they didn't "see" the half of it. There was just a litany of little things, subtle things, almost imperceptible. No doubt a countless number of them that I didn't notice, either.

Not all of it in pictures, of course. Some of it is in how things are presented, the wording used, the phrasings. I really good example is what some are trying to do to Dave Letterman. He's a comedian who made some jokes. The jokes were what they were, but some have tried make them into something they clearly were not. For example, Sarah Palin stated, "Acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others." Well, duh, but that's not what happened, Letterman never made sexual comments about an underage girl, but that doesn't matter, she's trying to associate Letterman, and older man, to those who use and abuse underage kids. It certainly deflects the attention away from her and her knocked up daughter, tho. People, including some here, have come out of the woodwork to spin this things as being something that is OMG shocking! along the same lines as a live broadcast of the Holocaust. They're even perpetuating libel and slander against Letterman to do it. Many people who have not seen the broadcast or read the comments in context will only hear what they have been manipulated to hear.

This one is risky, though. Her fanboys are right there with her, but to the general public, adding a feud with Letterman on top of the already open conflict with Newt is going to wear out her welcome very quickly. The only way this will work would be if they are able to take down Letterman completely, get him fired for a decisive win. But that hasn't happened, and unless it happens very, very quickly, like by Monday, it's too late, and they'll simply drop it. You watch.

The same thing has already started with Health Care. They're using key words and phrases to say one thing, but mean something else, something that will be received one way by the brain and another way by your emotions, leaving out some things and including only the emotional factors. Look for certain key phrases and words like "spiraling out of control," "runaway costs," "exploding." They will tell you about the high cost of health care, which you already know about, and know it's high, and you can't afford for it to go much higher, and then they'll hammer on the emotional buttons with how health care costs are going to spiral out of control, how things will just explode.

There are many in Congress, including a large chunk of his own party, who are dead set against what he wants to do with Health Care, so he's goin' on the road with it, to take it directly to the people, who we all know are easily manipulated. He will tell people that his plan is not universal health care and that there will not be any government controlled treatments, and while true initially, that's precisely where it's headed, and is precisely his goal. But he won't say that, and people will believe him.

 

[layoutshooter]

There will be NO free open debate over health care. It is a done deal and will be imposed by force. The lies have just begun to fly.

As to the sleeze Letterman, NO JOKES ABOUT REAL LIVE INDIVIDUAL KIDS!!!! It is wrong, dead wrong. The tragity of children getting pregnate is NOT the fodder for jokes. Modern sociaty accepts that as OKEE DOKEE. They blame lack of education, tv etc. To be sure those thing contribute but the real cause is lack of morals and NO parents in the house. Broken homes contribute far more than lack of sex ed in schools. Hours of un-supervised times for kids at home make "doing the deed" easy. Not teaching right and wrong and even going as are as to saying that there is no right or wrong contributes much. Glorifing sleezy people. The list never ends. The fact that a bum like Letterman would poke fun of this individual is not a surprise. Just more proof that we, as a sociaty, don't give a flip about our kids.

 

[Turtle]

So, not only should everbody's morals be the same as yours, now everyone's sense of humor has to be the same as yours. Interesting.

I can't think of a single issue, including real live individual kids, that can't be joked about. The tragedy of teenage pregnancy is, indeed a tragedy, but it can absolutely be joked about. Just look at Arkansas.

And if the REAL cause of teenage pregnancy is a lack of morals and no parents in the home, then Sarah Palin doesn't have much room to slam Letterman over right and wrong. Once she gets her own house in order, literally, then she came start telling others how to act.

Did you know that the rate of teenage pregnancy is the highest in the Bible Belt? Now that's funny.

 

[layoutshooter]

So, not only should everbody's morals be the same as yours, now everyone's sense of humor has to be the same as yours. Interesting.

I can't think of a single issue, including real live individual kids, that can't be joked about. The tragedy of teenage pregnancy is, indeed a tragedy, but it can absolutely be joked about. Just look at Arkansas.

And if the REAL cause of teenage pregnancy is a lack of morals and no parents in the home, then Sarah Palin doesn't have much room to slam Letterman over right and wrong. Once she gets her own house in order, literally, then she came start telling others how to act.

Did you know that the rate of teenage pregnancy is the highest in the Bible Belt? Now that's funny.

GO ahead and take thing out of context. Poke fun because I think kids should be protected. I did NOT back ANYTHING that Palin said in what I said. There is NOTHING funny about the rates of teen pregnacny. It is contributing to the crime rate, drug use and who knows what else.

You just don't get it. When kids are involved it is NOT anything goes. The problem IS caused by lack of morals, bad or indiffernt parenting and a general acceptance of sleezy living.

Yes, the rate is VERY high in the Bible Belt, many many reasons go into that. It does have little to do with the Bible part. I am not sure if it is higher there than the inner city. I really have not looked. I lived in the Bible Belt for a 3 year stretch. There were witches covens everywhere, sleezy families, pure white and black trash. There were "good" bible thumpers and bad ones. There were thumpers that rasised their kids right and had few problems. There were thumpers that raised their kids wrong and had many problems.

I abhore people who would joke about an individual kids tragedy of that magnitude. Nothing like compounding the problem. Just make fun of them, help them kill the kid, don't TEACH them anything and have them go at it again. OR, have them raise that kid and the 4 or 5 others that they have by 4 or 5 partners so as to insure the problem just grows. Yeah, Turtle, I am stupid. None of what I say matters. Just lets more lives get ruined in the name of tolerance. Good plan ya got there.

 

[Turtle]

GO ahead and take thing out of context. Poke fun because I think kids should be protected.

I didn't take anything out of context. I put it in the same context that you presented it in.

I did NOT back ANYTHING that Palin said in what I said.

Actually, yeah you did.

"The fact that a bum like Letterman would poke fun of this individual is not a surprise. Just more proof that we, as a sociaty, don't give a flip about our kids."

Palin said, essentially the same thing. Yet Letterman didn't poke fun at a kid, he poked fun at the pregnant 18 year old. The fact that he was wrong about which daughter doesn't change what he poked fun at. People can refuse to believe him when he says he didn't realize that the daughter who was at the game was only 14, but Letterman has never given anyone any reason to believe he's lying now. His history shows that he's never done that before, he's never even approached what he's being charged with doing here, and he's never lied. Palin and others are trying to smear Letterman, and you're backing her play.

There is NOTHING funny about the rates of teen pregnacny.

To you, maybe, but to me, at least, I can find at least ONE thing funny somewhere in there.

It is contributing to the crime rate, drug use and who knows what else.

Yeah, all those drug-crazed, pregnant girl gangs, running around shoplifting Pampers and Enfamil, playing up their pregnancy with their teachers so they can skate through junior high.

See? Told ya.

You just don't get it.

Yeah, I'm an idiot.

When kids are involved it is NOT anything goes.

Never said that anything goes. But it's not all off limits, either.

The problem IS caused by lack of morals, bad or indiffernt parenting and a general acceptance of sleezy living.

No, the problem is having sex without taking the proper precautions to keep from getting pregnant, or without thinking the consequences through. The morals of sex is a religious-based morality, borne largely from the Puritans and the Puritanical attitudes that remain amongst many religions. The only way everyone will have those morals if is they believe in the same religious doctrines. Yet teen pregnancy rates are, indeed higher in places where the religious morals are allegedly the highest (higher rate of STD's, too). So blaming it on morals is likely not correct.

Yes, the rate is VERY high in the Bible Belt, many many reasons go into that. It does have little to do with the Bible part.

If that's the case, then don't blame a lack of morals for any of it.

I am not sure if it is higher there than the inner city. I really have not looked.

I have. One would think it's higher in the inner city, or in large cities in general, but it's not. There are more o them in the inner city, to be sure, because there are more people, but the rate of teen pregnancy is the generally highest in the south, and is the highest in small towns and rural areas than in larger towns and cities.

About 10 years ago Arkansas had by far the highest teen pregnancy rate (according to the most recent data at the time, which was the 1990 figures), with the town of Lepanto taking home the gold. Among women aged 15-19, on a per 1000 basis, the pregnancy rate of Arkansas was 150, and in Lepanto it was well over 200. A concerted statewide effort of education and other methods have had a dramatic effect. Prior to that the overall teen pregnancy rate for the US was 117 per thousand, and it dropped considerably. But in 2007 the CDC reported a 3% increase, so it looks like it's on the rise again.

Currently, the teen pregnancy rates for the Top 10 based on the 2000 data are:

1. Nevada (113)
2. Arizona (104)
3. Mississippi (103)
4. New Mexico (103)
5. Texas (101)
6. Florida (97)
7. California (96)
8. Georgia (95)
9. North Carolina (95)
10. Arkansas (93)

Based on the same timeframe data, here's the Top 10 in terms of the teen abortion rate, women 15-19:

1. New Jersey (47)
2. New York (46)
3. Maryland (38)
4. Nevada (36)
5. California (36)
6. Hawaii (34)
7. Florida (33)
8. Delaware (31)
9. Connecticut (30)
10. Illinois (27)

Of all teen pregnancies, 57% result in lie birth, 14% end in miscarriage, and the other 29% end with abortion.

There's your morals, right there. One can get pregnant by mistake or out of ignorance or stupidity, but abortion is stone-cold cognitive decision.

I lived in the Bible Belt for a 3 year stretch. There were witches covens everywhere,

Yeah, it's hard to walk down the street in the South without tripping over a witch coven. They're everywhere, but not so much just down South. There's a rather large on in Idaho. But, it's New York State and New England where the bulk of the witch covens are located.

sleezy families, pure white and black trash.

That's not restricted to the South by any stretch of Tallcal's imagination. Ever been to Detroit? Cleveland? Chicago? Missoula? Seattle? San Jose? New Jersey?

There were "good" bible thumpers and bad ones.

Oxymoron

There were thumpers that rasised their kids right and had few problems. There were thumpers that raised their kids wrong and had many problems.

Clearly, the Bible then has minimal little effect on good morality. So it must be something else. What could it be? Maybe it's a late night TV comic with bad ratings. Yeah, that's the ticket. You bring the stake, I'll bring the charcoal, well have Dave on a stake and caribou on a stick.

Yeah, Turtle, I am stupid. None of what I say matters.

Welcome to my world.

 

[layoutshooter]

NEVER MIND, the boat worked well.