How are liberals created???

[Docta]

Speaking as a pretty staunch liberal on most issues, this is a question that intriques me. Some in my family (most did not attend college) will joke that I went off to college and then became liberal. They seem to blame the university/faculty for this evolution of my political philosophies. This is something that is heralded by conservatives in this country, that a "liberal bias" is seen in our colleges trying to convert our nice young republicans into bleeding hearts.

But how does this happen? It's not as if universities offer liberalism 101. If someone has conservative leanings, even if a Professor is a liberal, the conservative wouldn't just take an opinion as their own because they are told to would they?

My theory is that college teaches us to think more critically. To dig deeper into the meaning of things, why things happen in this world. College forces us to ask the question "why?"

This emersion into deeper thought and understanding, in my opinion, is what creates a more left wing individual, not some liberal pushers in the university itself.

Often as folks get older however, this becomes difficult to do. It is much easier not to dig into issues for real understanding but to just take at face value what we are told on the television. Add to that the fact that selfishly the conservative stand helps the older, financially stable person, and there is a group of older individuals voting republican. As boomers reach this age it may give another reason for our country becoming more conservative of late. Sorry off topic there for a moment.

But what do you think?

[BigSugar]

which leads us to the old saying: "If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart....but if your 40 and aren't a conservative, you have no brain...."

the young have nothing to lose and everything to gain.....i never worried about taxes or payroll or office expenses or rent until i stopped working at Chicken Express, went to college, went to law school and started working a real job....people without children don't necessarily worry how much the govt. is going to give them for child care credit....if you work for a big corporation, chances are you will support their stances on issues, if only out of self preservation....maybe you can call it "conservative by need"....not so much anti-liberal as they are pro self....

you will find very few of the "ultra-rich" being "liberals" in the true sense.....too much to lose....look at Ted Turner (when exactly was he going to donate that promised billion dollars to the UN??....i thought so....)

i think the notion proposed in your post though (ed note: reading between the lines) that liberals are necessarily the bigger thinkers versus conservatives being more knee jerk reactors is funamentally flawed.....and insulting to conservatives, many of whom are incredibly intelligent and defend positions as good or better than most liberals i know or have met....

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar

i think the notion proposed in your post though (ed note: reading between the lines) that liberals are necessarily the bigger thinkers versus conservatives being more knee jerk reactors is funamentally flawed.....and insulting to conservatives, many of whom are incredibly intelligent and defend positions as good or better than most liberals i know or have met....

you're right sug, that is what it sounded like and i did not mean it to. i do respect the opinion of the well informed and thoughful conservative, and do not beleive that all liberals are better thinkers at all. i very much enjoy talking with others who have opposing viewpoints of my own, but get frustrated by those whose only basis for argument is a segment on dateline nbc or something rush rambled on about the previous day. i also get frustrated when folks fail to acknowledge the many intricacies of the situation which lie beneath the surface. and these "less informed" individuals seem to be a big part of the conservative movement of late. they do not seem to even care that they are not fully thinking about the topic. don't get me wrong, there are democratic dumbasses too (to use red foreman's term).

to be honest, I am just trying to squash the notion a bit that universities are inherently liberal institutions who brainwash students into becoming left wing commies.

of course, am also thinking (perhaps foolishly) that if people were to not think of themselves but society as a whole, they would of course agree with me about everything! 8-)

[RichmondVA]

Well son, I'm glad you asked.

You see, when a liberal man like your daddy loves a liberal woman like your mommy, they take off their fancy pants and share a special nude "hug."

Then THE MAN sticks his, uhh nose into the woman's "private business," seizing control of a valuable commodity and monopolizing what was previously a fiercely competitive free market.

Your mommy may make some odd noises, but don't worry-- she's only moaning about the environment. Then your daddy's knee's jerk a few times and a baby is made!

9 months later the stork brings the baby to the parents. Unfortunately, conservative gun nuts always try to shoot down the stork in flight. And that's why we need government provided healthcare.

And that's how liberals are made.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by BigSugar
which leads us to the old saying: "If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart....but if your 40 and aren't a conservative, you have no brain...."
I always loved that saying. I disagree, but I love that saying.

Originally posted by BigSugar
if you work for a big corporation, chances are you will support their stances on issues, if only out of self preservation....maybe you can call it "conservative by need"....not so much anti-liberal as they are pro self....
That's one thing I've never understood. If anything, I RESENT being told what "the company" would like me to think about certain issues. If they didn't think I was intelligent enough to form my own opinions, why did they hire me? Into the legal department?! Assuming they do think that I'm intelligent enough to form my own opinions, why do they think that I'm just dumb enough not to realize that by pushing their stance and soliciting my support of it, they're essentially bullying. Around this here joint, it's understood that it's the company's way or no way, and 90% of the people I work with cave. I guess that fits into the self-preservation thing, but luckily for me, my job is WAAAAAY secure.

Originally posted by BigSugar
i think the notion proposed in your post though (ed note: reading between the lines) that liberals are necessarily the bigger thinkers versus conservatives being more knee jerk reactors is funamentally flawed.....and insulting to conservatives, many of whom are incredibly intelligent and defend positions as good or better than most liberals i know or have met....
But many conservatives ARE knee-jerk reactors, and like anything else, the extremes are what you hear about. Just like the "fuck everything" liberals, the extreme conservatives don't represent everyone on that side of the spectrum. And to be fair, "as good or better than" is often the beginning to some of the most subjective statements in history. As someone on the left, I have to disagree with you on that point.


Anywho, on to my own thoughts on the matter. If I had to boil it all down to it's basics, I'd have to say that your family and friends determine your political stances. They're the ones who influence your core beliefs and ethics more than anything or anyone else. There wasn't a specific instance where I decided that people, even those I've never met and never will, were more important than money, but that thought got into my head at some point, so I can't force myself to agree with typical conservative ideology concerning business. I spent my youth camping and fishing and playing sports, so I have a great fondness for the outdoors, and I grew up in mostly rural areas, so I prefer sprawling hills and forests to concrete. Because of the environment I grew up in, I tend to agree with conservationists, and I think we can all agree that the great majority of them (in the political arena) are liberal. Etc. etc. etc.

[dcXhc]

Mix:
Three parts misguided noblesse oblige
One part elitism
Two parts self-righteousness
One part smug sanctimony

Bake at 375 for 2 hours.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Three parts misguided noblesse oblige
One part elitism
Two parts self-righteousness
One part smug sanctimony
HAHAHAHAHA! :D
Maaaan, will the irony ever stop?

[butter_of_69]

I find it amusing that liberals are commonly painted as elitist. "Intellectual elite" is my fave. As though being well-educated were some sort of black mark...

[postfeminist]

i think everyone has made some valid points.

this is what happened to ME...i'm not saying that this is true for anyone but myself.

i grew up in a pretty conservative working class household. my dad is more or less a libertarian, and my mom is more or less a moderate, mostly unsure. my dad is pro-choice--not because he believes in a woman's right to choose, but because he thinks that reproduction is none of the government's business. my mom is pro-life because she believes that life begins at conception. she was raised Catholic, and although she doesn't believe in a lot of catholic doctrine anymore, she's held on to the pro-life thing. my dad is a member of the NRA, and owns a lot of guns, but is a responsible gun owner; i was taught that the guns were not toys, they were/are kept in a locked gun closet in his locked office, but my mom doesn't like guns and is only ok with them being in the house because of how locked up they are. my dad doesn't hunt; he was a skeet shooter for sport for a long time, but now he doesn't have much time for that hobby. my dad has an associate's degree, my mom never went to college....so they work very hard for the money they make and think they should be able to hold onto as much of it as possible.

when i was in high school at Roger Bacon (wow, did i just admit that?) i noticed some of the ways that the female students were treated differently from the male students. my parents also raised me to think that i could do anything i wanted, ingrained in me that i WOULD go to college, and i could be anything i wanted--whether that was writer, doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc... so i think that without thinking about it, that support/encouragement installed a basic kind of feminism in me-- they saw it as "no one is going to stop our awesome kid from doing anything she wants" but i saw it as "you're a girl and you can do whatever you want"...either way, it produced this idea that made me open to feminism-lite....that go girl power idea.

so when i was in high school, the dress code was really gender biased. in 1993, i started a bit of a campaign to have it evened out... i wanted them to expand the girls code to be as liberal as the guys code, but it went the other way--rather than giving the women more freedom, the men had some of their choices about dress code taken away. this created a bit of backlash towards me from male students for awhile, but they eventually got over it. from then on out, i had this attitude that i would not accept different rules for me because of my gender.

i read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf the summer i was 15. I had read about these books in school and wanted to know what they said. Marx stuck with me, and when i went to college in 1995, i joined a leftist organization, the democratic socialists of america.

when i went to college, i met kids who had grown up in democrat households. i took classes like psych and sociology, and sociology made me realize a lot more about socio-economic status, and i began to think about the way that race, gender, & class worked together and had effect on people's lives.

i had experienced homosexual feelings in high school, but it was just not talked about. i was labeled a dyke in high school because i was this feminist with short hair, and all the times people called me dyke and lesbian, i didn't think about what it really meant but rather knew it was something i didn't want to be called. when i got to college, i met other gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and started reexamining my past, and i came out of the closet. i had never heard anything positive about LGB people before, and suddenly i had all these LGB friends... good people, strong people, not recruiters and molesters like everything i'd ever heard before.

i think that a lot of my leftist leanings came from a REBELLION of what my parents believed...but over the last 8 years, i have kept some of those early leftist leanings and dumped others... for instance, i'm very pro-gun and support the bearing of arms (and especially the arming of bears!) but would never hunt... i believe in the right of people to own guns, know how to use them properly, and encourage gun owners to teach their children about guns the way i was taught...safely. i'm still pro-choice--much for the same reason my dad is-- i don't think it's the government's business. but i don't think i could ever have an abortion.

in the last year or so, i've moved into a place where i'm still a leftist, but i am more motivated by the idea of personal responsibility now... lemme explain so i'm not too misinterpreted. i would never have an abortion because i'm an adult; i have access to birth control, and i use it diligently...i'm careful and in a monogamous relationship with the man i'll marry in december. if something happened right now and i got pregnant despite my cautious behavior, i would have to take responsibility for that. To me, that responsibility would be bringing that new person into the world because they deserve the chance. but that's just for me...what others do is their business and i'm not here to judge them.

i'm responsible for paying my taxes. thankfully, i don't make much money, and i get a lot back from the federal government, which facilitates my education--some of the money i spent on books this quarter was from my tax check, and i'm thankful for that. but it's my responsibility to pay taxes; i have known folks who refuse to pay because of what the government does with our money, but i see it like this: if i don't pay, they can't even use some of my money for education, research that i see valuable, etc...

i'm getting a little rambley (did i make up a word just now?) but i guess in summation, part of my leftist leanings come from the way i was raised to believe that i could do whatever i want, part rebellion from my conservative parents, and part admitting that some of the shit i used to expouse was bullshit.

i agree with this, posted by IPrayForSound:

There wasn't a specific instance where I decided that people, even those I've never met and never will, were more important than money, but that thought got into my head at some point, so I can't force myself to agree with typical conservative ideology concerning business.

I agree with that... but i also want to say that like Docta,

i very much enjoy talking with others who have opposing viewpoints of my own, but get frustrated by those whose only basis for argument is a segment on dateline nbc or something rush rambled on about the previous day.

The thing about this is... I don't want to discuss with a leftist who is just spouting rhetoric from the ISO webpage, and i don't want to engage with a conservative who is just reading to me from the national review! Docta made the point about critical thinking skills, and i agree-- there is little emphasis on critical thinking in high school, and for many people it's not until college that they engage in that kind of thinking... for many, it creates a huge hurdle in their thinking processes, but for others, it's an opportunity.

it's not just the kids of republicans that become democrats; the kids of democrats become republicans all the time. my fiance brian says that he's gonna raise our kids pretending like he's really conservative, that way, when they rebel, they'll end up thinking just like we do. :) is he jesting, i don't think so... but i don't view parenting as a chance to make a carbon copy of yourself--but to give the world a better version of me. (woohoo, i threw in a Rainer Maria reference...yay me. btw, the new album rocks.)

word to your mother.

[DudeMan]

I think it's the faculty who are overwhelmingly liberal moreso than the student body. Most students sort of take it as a given that they're going to get a biased set of opinions, and filter it out. There are just as many Alex P. Keatons who come out of Harvard as there are Abbie Hoffmans.

And I think it's a self-serving fantasy that those who have learned to think better are more likely to be liberal because they're able to dive beneath the surface that troglodyte capitalists and libertarians only skim. I think that the professoriate tend to be more liberal because they tend to be more right-brained and they live in an environment that is somewhat removed from the 'real world'.

So many ivory-tower liberals I have had discussions with over the years have really been ill-equipped to take on my view points. Not because I'm smarter than they are, but because they are so used to speaking only or mostly among themselves that their ideas have essentially been formed and kept in a hothouse. And as a consequence they don't stand up well to an intelligently-argued opposing viewpoint. They usually resort to their old standby characateurs of the conservative being indistinguishable from Pat Robertson. In the end, when you only take people seriously whose opinions match those of your own, you do yourself a dis-service.

[postfeminist]

sorry that was so long. i know that it won't be read...so the summary for the faint of heart is this:

i think some folks rebel and become liberals or leftists or progressives, whatever you wanna call em.

i think some folks put their critical thinking hats on and just see it that way.

word.

[butter_of_69]

sorry that was so long. i know that it won't be read...so the summary for the faint of heart is this:

Postfeminist, you are my new favorite boarder.

[GWB]

Originally posted by BigSugar
which leads us to the old saying: "If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart....but if your 40 and aren't a conservative, you have no brain...."



Well Sug, I guess I fit that description to a T. When I was in my 20's, I was a staunch liberal (I even helped Billy Jeff Clinton get elected...gulp...TWICE!:o), but now that I'm approaching 40, I am a staunch conservative republican! It all boils down to your own personal belief system! This bullshit about university professors making someone a liberal or conservative is just that....BULLSHIT! They are no more responsible for making someone a liberal than a High School football coach is for turning someone into a star athlete. You either are or you aren't, no one can make you that way!

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by GWB
It all boils down to your own personal belief system! This bullshit about university professors making someone a liberal or conservative is just that....BULLSHIT! They are no more responsible for making someone a liberal than a High School football coach is for turning someone into a star athlete. You either are or you aren't, no one can make you that way!
Holy shit...I almost totally agree with you. :eek:

[Duemellon]

Alex P. Keatonsu did NOT go there.... oh no u didn't. Boyeee... u gone crazy.

[GWB]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Holy shit...I almost totally agree with you. :eek:

shhhhh....we're supposed to be on opposite sides. Remember? :D

[solomon]

This bullshit about university professors making someone a liberal or conservative is just that....BULLSHIT! They are no more responsible for making someone a liberal than a High School football coach is for turning someone into a star athlete. You either are or you aren't, no one can make you that way!

Were you just saying this to be saying it or did you really mean it? It's obviously not true. The difference between a star athlete and someone who isn't is usually genetic and/or affected by years of practice. A political view can change on a whim or with a little thought or direction from someone. This has happened with some of my friends. Someone who isn't familiar with economics or politics can be EASILY swayed when introduced to leftist doctrines, because they're so sugar-coated and friendly sounding. A lot of universities are liberal because the entire university itself is completely dependent on government funds, including its faculty, and so you see a systematic pro-government bias.

Solomon

[dcXhc]

I believe that liberals sprout up in college merely because college coincides with the time in one's life when one tends to question everything, to challenge authority, and tries to establish one's own identity, largely through questioning the values and ideas they were brought up with and the values and ideas they see are prevalent in society. It's a rite of passage -- and a very healthy one.

I also find it interesting that the liberals seem to think that their ideas are rooted in "critical thinking" and "deep understanding" and that it is their superior education and their fearless questioning that sets them above the masses who blindly accept everything they see on TV. It goes to show that my earlier post about liberals being elitists and practicing misguided noblesse oblige was only partially ironic.

[yvette7ica]

I think it boils down to your experience and what your definition of the two terms are. I am a product of two extremes. Dad, definitely a liberal, were mom's definitely conservative. So different I don't know how they found much of anything politically in common. This, however, was a good thing for my sisters and I because it taught us to listen to both sides and understand where they were coming from. I guess I just don't see the point in trying to pin down people into left or right, conservative or liberal. I listen to my grandfather who would be classified as far right conservative (has quite a collection of Rush Limbaugh ties) and is extremely intelligent, but I think his conservative mindset has a lot to do with the time and place he grew up in and his experiences (he's not real keen on gays or minorities.) He wasn't exposed to the same life as my sisters and I, and we don't fault him for having the opinions he does. I don't think being conservative or liberal has much to do with your education, but how you evaluate the world around you. Life would be so boring if everyone thought the same.

[Duemellon]

I think it boils down to two things:

Deez nuts.

[yvette7ica]

LOL....

[postfeminist]

butter said:
Postfeminist, you are my new favorite boarder.

shucks...what can i say? i try to catch on fast.

[GWB]

Originally posted by solomon


The difference between a star athlete and someone who isn't is usually genetic and/or affected by years of practice.

Really? Then why is it that, on average, only about 3% of high school athletes go on to make it in the pros. Are you saying that they would have if they would have only practiced more?! Like I said, either you are or you aren't!

A political view can change on a whim or with a little thought or direction from someone.

You're kidding, right? If your "political view can change on a whim or with a little thought of direction from someone" then:

A) I question you commitment to your views and

B) You're allowing others to do your thinking for you!


This has happened with some of my friends. Someone who isn't familiar with economics or politics can be EASILY swayed when introduced to leftist doctrines, because they're so sugar-coated and friendly sounding.

The only ones who are easily swayed are the ones who want to be easily swayed. Those who don't educate themselves on the issues!


A lot of universities are liberal because the entire university itself is completely dependent on government funds, including its faculty, and so you see a systematic pro-government bias.

Agreed, but the suggestion of a college professor influencing someone's political views still ludicrous!

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by dcXhc
I believe that liberals sprout up in college merely because college coincides with the time in one's life when one tends to question everything, to challenge authority, and tries to establish one's own identity, largely through questioning the values and ideas they were brought up with and the values and ideas they see are prevalent in society. It's a rite of passage -- and a very healthy one.

I agree with you here. When I was in college, I voted for Ross Perot for cryin-out-loud.

:rolleyes:

[GWB]

Originally posted by monkey neck


I agree with you here. When I was in college, I voted for Ross Perot for cryin-out-loud.

:rolleyes:

YIKES!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[solomon]

Agreed, but the suggestion of a college professor influencing someone's political views still ludicrous!

Ok now you've really made me curious. What CAN influence a person's political views? A show? A book? But not the professor that wrote the book? Am I understanding you?

[RichmondVA]

I've always been middle-of-the-road and still am, but I probably became more left-leaning during college. And the classes that influenced me most were economics and business courses typically taught be conservative, right-leaning professors.

They don't teach you about game-theory and the Nash equilibrium until intermediate microeconomic theory. You take Econ 101 and everything is golden. You take Macro and upper-level microeconomics and that's when they teach you about the holes in basic microeconomic theory. And that's when I figured out that individual corporations acting in their own individual interests DO NOT maximize utility for the group as a whole.

Then I would go to business classes where we would learn that one of the primary strategies for success is to find a niche market with less competition.

So I began to think of the US as one large corporation, with each private company serving as, in effect, a subsidiary. If you are trying to maximize profits as a corporation, it doesn't make sense to have your subsidiaries wasting resources competing against each other.

It's clear to me that the ultimate efficiency and maximization of utility occurs when you have a complete totalitarian government with perfect knowledge of the marketplace. I don't believe such a government exists, so I have no problem with free market competition. But I also have no problem with some governmental control of the economy.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
It's clear to me that the ultimate efficiency and maximization of utility occurs when you have a complete totalitarian government with perfect knowledge of the marketplace.

So long as your utility-maximizing citizens place no value on personal autonomy. But I guess that's a minor leap to make if you're already assuming perfect knowledge.....

[ms. chevious]

ok, so, i *am* one of those "liberal college professors" who supposedly corrupt the minds of our future worker bees.

it is possible to think critically and hold both conservative and liberal positions. however, it is interesting that things like marxism, feminism, critical race theory, gender theory, even PHILOSOPHY are taught *only* in our colleges...however, if we understand the function of public (high school) education as the production of working individuals - the cogs in our post-industrial society in which the economic and political spheres are increasingly indistinguishable - it is not surprising that critical thought is discouraged to the benefit of discipline and obedience (just think about proficiency tests: do ONLY what the state wants you to do, exactly when, where, and how the state wants you to do it).

while i realize that my entire post is a string of generalizations, it seems to me that one's relative left- or right- stance depends on how one values two things:

1) property

2) community (other people)

i think of the scene in _rude boy_ where joe and ray are in the pub discussing the merits and faluts of the left- and right-wing positions. ray says that he wants to make sure that he is one of the "haves" (one of the people riding around in the black cars, i.e., one of the powerful/ruling class), and doesn't care about the have nots. joe, on the other hand, argues that "it's all of us or none," and that the value of a radical left-wing stance is that it is concerned for the whole of humanity, and not one's selfish interests.

people who have property (or believe they have property) generally want to do everything they can to preserve the _privacy_ of their property. ergo, many wealthy businesspeople are farily conservative, because they want to conserve their exclusive right to property (and to increasing their horde of property by accumulating surplus capital by exploiting the have nots).

the people who do not have property generally seek a more just distribution of porperty. that is, they would prefer property be more communal and less private.

as a graduate student, i presently fall into the category of have not. i do recognize that there are people in far, far more abject poverty than i, i would make *more* money if i quit school and began working 40hrs a week at wal-mart. not only would i make more, i would have health benefits, and wouldn't need massive loans *in addition* to the paycheck i get from teaching a few classes just to eat and pay rent.

all university faculty were at some point graduate students - i.e., have nots. most experienced the relative poverty of the working class, and tend to be sympathetic to the concerns of the working class. also, there seems to be a committment, or at least openness to, radical change. this may not be the case with everyone, but my colleagues and i discuss this frequently and find this to be a common experience.

another nod to the late great joe: in _westway to the world_, he observes that "authority is not based on wisdom. it is a system of control" grounded in HAVING wealth and power. many intellectuals grow frustrated at the unwise exercise of authority; i find it scary that the government is run by a man less intelligent than i (dubbya). the government is *supposed* to consist of the nation's best and brightest. when this is not the case, it is easy to see why the nation's brightest would be critical of those in power. (note that one can be critical of those in power while also supportive of the nation).

ok, this is too long...i'll stop now...

[GWB]

Originally posted by solomon


Ok now you've really made me curious. What CAN influence a person's political views? A show? A book? But not the professor that wrote the book? Am I understanding you?

How about your conscience! Geez!:rolleyes:

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by GWB
Really? Then why is it that, on average, only about 3% of high school athletes go on to make it in the pros. Are you saying that they would have if they would have only practiced more?! Like I said, either you are or you aren't!

If a college professor can't influence your politics, then there's something wrong with you. Either you are so smart that your professors had nothing to teach you, or you just don't listen or don't want to learn.

Or you could be the type of person who doesn't believe anything your professors tell you because you can just make up phony statistics to refute them-- things "like 'about' 3% of high school athletes make it to the pros.

[GWB]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


If a college professor can't influence your politics, then there's something wrong with you. Either you are so smart that your professors had nothing to teach you, or you just don't listen or don't want to learn.



No, I just choose not to let others do my thinking for me!

[GWB]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


phony statistics to refute them-- things "like 'about' 3% of high school athletes make it to the pros.

Well let's see. Wait a minute...you're right! According to National Federation of State High School Associations Executive Director, Robert Kanaby, "Only five percent of high school athletes will become college athletes, but the majority will become students at your colleges."

FIVE PERCENT!!! Which means that even fewer MAKE IT TO THE PROS!

Don't believe me? Read the article!

www.gballmag.com/cc-amateurism.html

Remember what I said, those who don't want to be easily swayed educate themselves on the issues!

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by GWB
No, I just choose not to let others do my thinking for me!
What kind of opinion do you have when you refuse to let others present information relevant to the topic? You can claim as much independent thought as you want, but almost everything that you think has been thought, written, published and broadcasted before. You've taken information from someone, so why shouldn't you take information from an educator?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by GWB
Remember what I said, those who don't want to be easily swayed educate themselves on the issues! [/B]

I wasn't making a point about how hard it is to get into pro athletics. My point was that you just made up a statistic and trotted it out there like it was a real fact. And it was so unbelievably far off that it was a joke. Which shows how interested you are in actual learning or facts. Try again, Ace.

Or, if you can stand to learn something from someone who was a Graduate Teaching Assistant in statistics, I'll help you out:

click (http://www.ncaa.org/eligibility/cbsa/index1.html)

I'll also also point out that even the best athletes are constantly learning and improving their games. You don't think players learn from their college coaches?

[tobedawg]

I agree that politics are a personal belief system engrained by circumstances. I really don't believe that teachers or professors can really shape someone's views/opinions. Maybe present a different side of issues.

In high school, a majority of my teachers were Limbaugh-letter subscribing conservatives. I respected what some of them had to say and some of their points. I listened thoroughly but they did not change my mind.

My family.. My mom is a Japanese American who grew up with an air force dad and a conservative Japanese mother. My mom's views are slanted towards the conservative direction.

My Dad grew up in a single parent household (his mom) and dropped out of high school. My dad has been to prison twice for drug related offenses. He is fairly uneducated, yet he listens to Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh religously. He is a conservative.

I guess growing up in a household where my Mom worked hard to support us (there were 6 kids in the family), and where there was a presence of domestic violence (on the part of my dad), my views shifted in my teen years.

When I was in High School, George Bush Sr. was President and we were at War in Iraq. The economy sucked and my mom was working for her 13th year at a Thankless retail dead-end job. I guess I got my view of Corporations and The American Workplace from watching what my mom had to endure on a daily basis.

My social views changed in high school too. I watched the 1992 Republican Convention and heard Dan Quayle go off about how horrible single parents are and how we need "family Values". That really pissed me off!! Because had my mother gotten a divorce, there would have been alot of avoidable circumstances in her life. Then hearing Pat Buchannan speak and spew his homophobic propagnada was the last straw. Like postfeminist, I was coming to terms with my sexuality.

After that I became a RADICAL liberal. I started writing an underground poli-Zine called "The Liberator". My views now, however, have gone a little more to the center.

[GWB]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

What kind of opinion do you have when you refuse to let others present information relevant to the topic? You can claim as much independent thought as you want, but almost everything that you think has been thought, written, published and broadcasted before. You've taken information from someone, so why shouldn't you take information from an educator?

It's....called....taking....information....from... .both....sides....of....an....issssssue....procccc essssing....that....in-for-mation....and....coming....to....a....decision,... .forming....your own....o-pin-ion....thuuuusss....thin-king....foooooor....your....self! Take all the information you want from educators! Study up on the issues, but make your own decisions on where you stand. Don't take up their position simply because they think it's right! Educate yourself is all I'm saying!

Many of you don't agree with my position on things! THAT'S GREAT!!! I think that's what makes this country as great as it is! The cool thing is we can actually debate this issue without retribution from anyone!

[GWB]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


My point was that you just made up a statistic and trotted it out there like it was a real fact.

click (http://www.ncaa.org/eligibility/cbsa/index1.html)



From your source:

"Less than 3 percent of college seniors will play one year in professional basketball. "

What did I say, about 3%? Hmmm, interesting.

"The odds of a high-school football player making it to the pros at all--let alone having a career--are about 6,000 to 1; the odds for a high-school basketball player--10,000 to 1. "

Mmmmm, them's is good odds, huh?:confused:

[RichmondVA]

Forget it. It's a side point, anyway. I don't really care about how hard it is to become a pro athlete.

I just wanted to figure something out about you. I've seen all I need to see here. I'm not surprised that people can't change your mind about things.

Carry on.

[GWB]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Forget it. It's a side point, anyway. I don't really care about how hard it is to become a pro athlete.

I just wanted to figure something out about you. I've seen all I need to see here. I'm not surprised that people can't change your mind about things.

Carry on.

Right back at ya!:D

[classicgrrl]

At first I didnt post when I saw the topic because to be blunt I didnt want to be ridiculed. But I feel braver now so I'll have a go:

As I grew older I have leaned more and more to the left. And then sometime in my late 20's I started to distrust the "left" and now I just flat out hate politics. I continually see things as being more complex and frankly both the left and right tend to simplify things so badly that it just distorts the holy hell out of everything.

When I was young I was quite conservative...even growing up in Reagan's shadow. But some changing life experiences as well as being made aware of different lifestyles and so forth in college really brought a change in me. Later, again due to some different life circumstances and frankly my growing addicted reading habit now has me seeking a political home. I rarely watch the news and I truly cannot stand to read the majority of newsprint media that exists. I need something that shows both sides of the spectrum...and although it is difficult to find it is not impossible.

That being said - I think a combination of how we are raised + life circumstances is truly what shapes our political outlooks. I was raised to be Republican - until my parents divorced and it turned out that my mother harbored some closet-feministic tendancies (that she refuses to acknowledge to this day). That combined with meeting some different ways of thinking and being in college gave me a much more decided liberal outlook until my late 20's when I again turned a bit more to the right economically. Now with a mound of reading under my belt along with some very different set of life circumstances and I find I am devoid of a true political home.

American politics (or the junky stuff you see on tv nightly) are increasingly infantile. BOTH SIDES.

[GWB]

Now THAT is what is known as thinking for yourself! Bravo, classicgrrl, bravo!

[Duemellon]

Now THAT is what is known as thinking for yourself! Bravo, classicgrrl, bravo!I'm so glad you give the stamp of approval for a hypothesis you feel isn't absurd, contrary to logic, or against what you beleive.

It's nice to see that those who "think for themselves" explain the world the way you would.

Or... maybe... everyone REALLY DOES think for themselves, but when you don't like the idea, or heard it before, you dismiss them.

Yeah, I'm accusing YOU, as well as Phreon, Monkey Neck, and others, who LOVE to label people with contrary ideas, or hypothesis based on facts outside of YOUR belief, as being silly or automotons.

[GWB]

Originally posted by Duemellon


Or... maybe... everyone REALLY DOES think for themselves, but when you don't like the idea, or heard it before, you dismiss them.

Yeah, I'm accusing YOU, as well as Phreon, Monkey Neck, and others, who LOVE to label people with contrary ideas, or hypothesis based on facts outside of YOUR belief, as being silly or automotons.

No dear, I dismiss people who have their ideals spoon fed to them by some college professor who thinks that his or her ideas are gospel because they have a college degree! Now, SIT DOWN!:mad:

[Duemellon]

No dear, I dismiss people who have their ideals spoon fed to them by some college professor who thinks that his or her ideas are gospel because they have a college degree! Now, SIT DOWN!So, you are able to judge who is able to make indepedent decisions based on what? The words they say? The reasons they introduce? Or the fact they cite their "college professor" in every statement?

It is quite possible for an individual to independently review all the facts and come up with the same conclusion as popular society decided. Isn't it?

I'm attacking YOU because that same statement of "get original arguements/ideas" is thrown around as one of the most dismissive and insulting comments. Yet, such a tone only illustrates the incapability of the accuser to accept someone else could POSSIBLY conclude the popular answer using the same facts.

Close mindedness.

[postfeminist]

if you believe everything you hear, you're an asshole.

i think that most of us were saying that it's part experience and part exposure that got us where we are on the political spectrum, and we get trashed for it because we're leftists...

i agree, classicgirl seems right on, but everyone else has been dissed for saying the same thing, GWB...

i agree with duemellon, yo. and it's not because i'm an asshole; it's because i can think for myself too.

word.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by GWB


No dear, I dismiss people who have their ideals spoon fed to them by some college professor who thinks that his or her ideas are gospel because they have a college degree!

What makes you think that college professors think their ideas are gospel?

A college classroom is a place for discourse, intellectual debate and sharing of ideas. I don't know any college profs who think what they say is gospel. They put ideas on the table and if you don't confront these ideas or debate them, may YOU think the professor's idea is gospel because you are afraid to think for fear of getting a bad grade.

grow up! :mad:

[DudeMan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/05/international/worldspecial/05CAMP.html
Here's an interesting article from this morning's NYT that relates to a point I was making earlier. The ranks of the professorships are now made up largely of liberals and tenured radicals who are oftentimes much more liberal than the student body as a whole. It must be frustrating for them to see the next generation actually believing in the system.

[Docta]

the other thing that the article seems to point out dudeman is the faculty not specifically pushing their ideas though, allowing the student's opinion in discussion.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by Docta
the other thing that the article seems to point out dudeman is the faculty not specifically pushing their ideas though, allowing the student's opinion in discussion.


which itself is a liberal approach! :)

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Docta
the other thing that the article seems to point out dudeman is the faculty not specifically pushing their ideas though, allowing the student's opinion in discussion.
In my own experience several of my favorite profs were lefties who took a liking to and encouraged me even though they disagreed with me. Then there was a small but significant minority who either subtly or more crudly singled out people with opposing opinions. I never put up with that sort of crap, but a number of people were cowed into keeping their opinions to themselves while the prof droned on with his sad, outmoded views.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

but a number of people were cowed into keeping their opinions to themselves while the prof droned on with his sad, outmoded views.

the people who agreed with you had opinions, but the prof had "sad, outmoded views?" also, how do you know people who were not participating did not agree with the prof?

but yes, there are a few profs who are pretty closed minded about things, but i would guess those are few and far between. it's hard to get into the position of professor with a closed mind.

[solomon]

I've always been middle-of-the-road and still am

What do you mean by this? I hear people say this all the time and it's always seemed to me that there is no middle of the road without huge inconsistencies in the thought process.

You take Macro and upper-level microeconomics and that's when they teach you about the holes in basic microeconomic theory.

There really isn't such a thing as micro vs macro economics. There's just economics. The same principles guide both, and even many aspects of your every-day life. The distinction is partly the result of the mistaken modern approach to treating economics like a natural science like physics.

And that's when I figured out that individual corporations acting in their own individual interests DO NOT maximize utility for the group as a whole.

Which group?

Then I would go to business classes where we would learn that one of the primary strategies for success is to find a niche market with less competition.

Do you mean this in a degrading way? Of course this is the strategy. That's the whole idea behind the profit signal. If a business believes that a profit is to be made here it just means that they think that consumers aren't being satisfied enough in this area as much as they would like to be. So they take a chance and draw resources from other areas and see if they work better here. If they are right then more businesses will be attracted to satisfying this need/want.

But I also have no problem with some governmental control of the economy.

Which parts? And why? Just curious.

Cya

[solomon]

while i realize that my entire post is a string of generalizations, it seems to me that one's relative left- or right- stance depends on how one values two things:

1) property

2) community (other people)

I would say solely number one. It seems that you are implying that the two are mutually exclusive and they are not. Someone who strongly values property rights isn't "against" the community. I strongly value property rights, in fact I think all rights are ultimately property rights, but I also highly value the community. I just think the community is much better off with clear cut property rights.

ray says that he wants to make sure that he is one of the "haves" (one of the people riding around in the black cars, i.e., one of the powerful/ruling class), and doesn't care about the have nots. joe, on the other hand, argues that "it's all of us or none," and that the value of a radical left-wing stance is that it is concerned for the whole of humanity, and not one's selfish interests.

Again, you are claiming that a right wing or highly capitalist view is somehow against humanity or not concerned with humanity. Some of the "players' in the society may not be concerned with humanity, but the overall system is. THe system only reflects the values of the participants in it (everyone.) The idea behind capitalism is to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers most efficiently and in a voluntary/nonaggressive way. In fact I find a lot of leftists are actually the more selfish, they just mask their selfishness in wanting what they haven't earned or wanting something for free by using a bunch of talk about society and community.

people who have property (or believe they have property) generally want to do everything they can to preserve the _privacy_ of their property. ergo, many wealthy businesspeople are farily conservative, because they want to conserve their exclusive right to property (and to increasing their horde of property by accumulating surplus capital by exploiting the have nots).

Trust me, everyone is concerned with their right to their property. Not just the rich. How much do you think the poor man with his belongings in a cart would like it if I came up and said "sorry, no more property rights" and took his cart? Not very much. If you work hard all your life for what you have, what right does anyone have to take it?

Exclusive right to property? What are you talking about?

And profit is not made by exploiting anyone. That's more marxist gobbledygook. There isn't any exploitation in a free capitalist society. No one has a gun to their head. Profit is made by reallocating resources to more highly valued ends.

all university faculty were at some point graduate students - i.e., have nots. most experienced the relative poverty of the working class, and tend to be sympathetic to the concerns of the working class.

And many many wealthy businessmen experienced relative poverty in their lives.

the government is *supposed* to consist of the nation's best and brightest.

It's supposed to but it never can. The structure of a democracy assures that the worst people rise to the top. The best liars, the best cheats, the dirtiest players are the ones who win elections.

Cya

Solomon

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by solomon
And profit is not made by exploiting anyone. That's more marxist gobbledygook. There isn't any exploitation in a free capitalist society. No one has a gun to their head. This might not be quite on topic, but this is a great blanket statement that doesn't take into account the HUGE amounts of layoffs and salary cuts that go into effect when a company decides that by using forced (through violence or lack of other options) labor in smaller, poorly developed countries, they can save a shitload of money. That's what I call valuing property while disregarding the community.

[AmericanScience]

re:
1. property
2. community

Originally posted by solomon
I would say solely number one. It seems that you are implying that the two are mutually exclusive and they are not. Someone who strongly values property rights isn't "against" the community. I strongly value property rights, in fact I think all rights are ultimately property rights, but I also highly value the community. I just think the community is much better off with clear cut property rights.I think you're missing something: 2 comes into play as far as society is concerned. I don't see how you think "property" would shape your political stance towards people of different religious beliefs for example..

This is a great thread. I dug a lot of the posts on it. And I dunno why I'm such a freakin' bleeding heart liberal, I just always have been. I expect I'll grow more financially conservative as I age, but perhaps not.

[RichmondVA]

Solomon,

To answer some of your questions (which were good ones, btw).

There's nothing wrong with businesses finding niches in the marketplace. It just struck me one day that if the US as a country wants to maximize it's utility (which is the free-market assumption, no?) then the US is, in a sense, a private actor similar to a corporation.

If a corporation has two subsidiaries that are competing against each other they will often close one subsidiary because it isn't efficient to have two of your own companies waste money on staff, advertising, etc. Better to merge the two into one bigger company so that it can take advantage of economies of scale, more market power. Take the savings from the merger and find a less competitive market. It doesn't ALWAYS make sense to do this, but sometimes it does. You see companies do it all the time.

Now the corporation could simply let the subsidiaries compete until one wins, but in the meantime they're wasting cash. They're better off determining when, how, and whether their subs. should compete using central planning. In essence, that's of what a government does. Think of the US as the corporation and each individual actor as a subsidiary.

Or to put it another way. The free-market concept was heavily influenced by and reflects evolutionary theory-- competition forces change for the better. But biologists will tell you that evolution is wasteful. It's very inefficient. You're making say, 5 monkeys just to kill 4 of them. Evolution is essentially trying out every crazy species or species characteristic even though the majority of them don't convey any advantage. But if we know what makes a better (more efficient) creature, we can move towards it with purpose. Think how much faster artificial selection works over natural evolution.

Thus, assuming we know what truly maximizes utility for the US as a whole it's actually much more efficient to have a centrally planned economy over free-market. But of course, we DON'T know. However, I think there are a few limited places where we can see that things are wasteful or going down the wrong track.

Also, I don't really believe in property rights. In fact I don't believe in any rights whatsoever. Everything you have, you have only because someone is willing to let you have it.

[yoshomon]

It's pretty simple actually.

During the 50's, all of the leftists, liberals, and aging radicals were kicked out of top positions at colleges and replaced with conservatives.

Then, after the 'communist' freakout was over, colleges became once again led by leftists, liberals, and aging radicals.

Those leftists, liberals, and aging radicals still hold the positions they got in the 60's and 70's (head of departments, etc), so they obviously hire new profs that have similar ideas.

Of course, some schools have a very conservative faculty. But overrall, it is true that most colleges don't.


Let me make a simple equation. All socioeconomic systems throughout history (like Feudalism for example) have fallen, been overthrown, etc and replaced with something that was eventually 'better'. At this moment, the ruling socioeconomic system is capitalism. If you look at it historically, capitalism will eventually fall. Essentially, it is fighting in self-defense.

So, do you want to fight for a dying regime?

Thus, the debate of liberal vs. conservative is pointless because both liberals and conservatives side with capitalism and capitalism will lose.

[Danosaur]

Do you read palms too? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Gov'ts rise and fall, but capitalism is strong. For all of its inherent flaws, capitalism has created new levels of wealth that pay for social programs that help people. For example, the Workforce Investment Act will pay up to 15,000 dollars in retraining for eligible workers who have been laid off or when their current industry is dieing out. That's capitalism.

[yoshomon]

Look Danasour, this isn't a predicting the future thing, this is a looking back at the past thing.

And capitalism is far from perfect. There will be something better.

[Danosaur]

Capitolism isn't perfect, but right now it's going strong. Waiting for it to fall isn't going to make anything better today. That is why American's should struggle with liberal and conservative plans that address todays pressing issues.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Capitolism isn't perfect, but right now it's going strong. Waiting for it to fall isn't going to make anything better today. That is why American's should struggle with liberal and conservative plans that address todays pressing issues.

Waiting for it to fall is pointless.

Working to overthrow it on the other hand...

[Duemellon]

I agree with Yosh on this part:
Capitalism is not the end-all solution. It is in danger of being obsolete.

I agree with Dan:
It is not our calling to sit around and let it die, because right now capitalism is part of the most powerful nation, and to place energies in it's destruction would be counter-productive at this point.

I do believe the merging is something like this:
Capitalism has an opportunity to peacefully mutate into the next evolution of social structure. It can be said this can happen peacibly because it is not in such a state of disarray that bold militaristic installation of the next step isn't necessary.

However, when capitalism begins to rot to the point where the divisions causes an irreparable chasm, violence will erupt, the new social structure will be forcibly placed.

I just hope we don't really have to wait until the divisions drive us to that point. The point that Yosh wants to happen today.

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I'm so glad you give the stamp of approval for a hypothesis you feel isn't absurd, contrary to logic, or against what you beleive.

It's nice to see that those who "think for themselves" explain the world the way you would.

Or... maybe... everyone REALLY DOES think for themselves, but when you don't like the idea, or heard it before, you dismiss them.

Yeah, I'm accusing YOU, as well as Phreon, Monkey Neck, and others, who LOVE to label people with contrary ideas, or hypothesis based on facts outside of YOUR belief, as being silly or automotons.

I'm touched that you invoked me, yet it's puzzling how you haven't grasped the irony of your own complaints about people dismissing ideas contrary to their own. So I suppose that because I don't agree with the ideas you espouse, I didn't think for myself in formulating them?

Telling, very telling indeed.

Honestly, my path ran just about opposite of ClassicGrrl's. I started out as a rather liberal minded highschool/college student, but as I entered the real world (the one where you have to take care of yourself or be left for dead), I drifted to the other side. Does this mean I was Left winger who swung to the Right? No, I've never been a part of any wing, as I see them as being the fringe who generally do disservice to the majority's view (Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Sean Hannity et. al).

Socially, I'm still am rather liberal, but life has taught me that such ideals must be tempered by the cold, hard fact that somebody has to pay for all these grand social ideals. That and ideas like, "it takes a village to raise a child" (bullshit, it takes a loving family), the constant class warfare many liberals engage in and the complete lack of logic when arguing points (If the war in Iraq was truely about oil, we would have just lifted sanctions and bought it dirt cheap, for example) turned me off to that whole side. If you're rich because you worked your ass off, that's great. That's America. To me, the desire to redistribute wealth is nothing more than envy. Should we leave homeless people to rot? No, but neither should people on welfare be having more children.

As for your and Yosh's coments on capitalism, I can't help but wonder what you think an effective alternative to capitalism would be? To be fair, I've often bantied about in the cavernous recesses of my head that communism must fail and capitalism works more or less because of the general stupidity and greed of man. Really, how long would we have a thriving capitalist society if everyone simultaniously realized that the incessant drive to purchase and consume is total bullshit? It makes far more economic and enviromental sense to rebuild a car for example, yet people are hooked on getting the latest model. Who gives a shit that their car doesn't have 10 way, electric memory seats? Really?

True communism is a noble goal, but will ultimately fail because there are too many lazy and or stupid people about for such a egalitarian ideal to succeed.

Socialism kind of works but never produces the kind of economic robustness we see in the U.S. because the redistribution of wealth and heavy handed government control has a constant dampening effect on innovation and financial growth.

Capitalism seems to work the best because there are enough stupid, unenlighted people out there who have bought into the ideals Procter and Gamble has taught them. And people are just selfish enough to let the unfortunate "po folks" fall off the radar screen and label them as lazy riff-raff as long as it isn't themselves.

Anyway, to steer back to the point of this post, Due, we're all guilty of dismissing ideas that seem contrary to the reality we've built in our heads. But when you dismiss simple logic to win an arguement, what's to stop you from believing pure fiction?


Phreon

[Duemellon]

I can't help but wonder what you think an effective alternative to capitalism would be?and I ponder this every day. I still dont have a solution, and I await the epiphany. I just know the way evolution goes, capitalism will not live forever. The only countries that have the same government they've had for 100's of years are ruled by despots, are in constant turmoil, or are small little places with insignificant influence in the world.

Please, I ask that you prove me wrong about the 100-years, that will throw a wrinkle in my hypothesis.Anyway, to steer back to the point of this post, Due, we're all guilty of dismissing ideas that seem contrary to the reality we've built in our heads. But when you dismiss simple logic to win an arguement, what's to stop you from believing pure fiction? And that's where we differ isn't it? By disagreeing with YOU, or people who think like you, and not changing my views, you consider me "thick-headed" or dismissive. Yet, I don't use phrases such as "you're an idiot", "you're argument is without merit", "I've skipped your post entirely because it's another list of meaningless fabricated points." But many of those people have. In fact, I've never said "Phreon is a blind party-follower/automaton" yet you have, multiple times. Furthermore YOU are guilty of accusing me of saying things I've never said. I challenged you on that, and you are unable to produce things to support you.

At what point did I say we are at war b/c Bush is a warmongering idiot?

Or that the war was JUST about oil?

And the other challenges I laid before YOU. Can you actually take a critical look at the accusations you made in THAT post and see how you are assuming my stances and intents without reading my messages? In fact, having a form of prejudice towards me?

this thread:
http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=94616#post94616
this post by you:
You mean to tell me you've never said the war was about nothing more than oil? Or that Bush is a stupid war monger? Or that the inspectors were working just fine and the war is not justified? Or that we were wrong for essentially telling the useless UN to fuck off? Are you really going to make me pore over past threads and cite specific quotes? What have you been smoking?

Relax dude, I'm just trying to get you to stop calling me your enemy before I open my mouth. My reputation proceeds me, but I didn't make this reputation. Others began to assume my stance was contrary because they didn't read my messages.

oh boy, you should've heard me and BT when I first got on this board. He hated me to the core, I couldnt get a word in which he read without assuming I hated him. There were many times I posted in agreeance, but he knee-jerk reacted as if I was attacking him. It was a shame.

But, unlike BS, when BT put me on ignore, he left me alone...

[solomon]

Hi

doesn't take into account the HUGE amounts of layoffs and salary cuts that go into effect when a company decides that by using forced (through violence or lack of other options) labor in smaller, poorly developed countries, they can save a shitload of money.

No one really has "job security", nor should they. I've had multiple jobs. If people didn't get fired or take losses if entrepreneurs, society would never advance. Should we have subsidized horse-and-buggy companies because it was unfair that the car was developed? Things become obsolete. New processes are invented. And the KEY to knowing this is the profit/loss signal. It frees up resources to move to more highly valued areas. So why should we pay group X to do this job, when we can pay group Y to do it for less, and free up resources to go to other things that are more valuable (and therefore bring prices down for the consumer in that industry?) What makes group X so special that they should have the luxury of government-mandated job security?

Also, "lack of other options" is not an act of aggression. Hypothetically, if I hire you to cut my grass for $20, the fact that you didn't have any other options of making $20 is not an act of aggression on my part. Without me you wouldn't have 20 at all. Of course violence is an act of aggression and that is inexcusable. In a capitalist society, all contracts are Pareto-superior, meaning that both parties are better off under the contract than not, as demonstrated by the fact that they entered the contract at all. Exploitation only happens when one person is better off, while making another person WORSE off. Like the government does with taxes.

Solomon

[solomon]

I don't see how you think "property" would shape your political stance towards people of different religious beliefs for example..

You own your body and your mind. You are free to exercise them in any way you choose, as long as you aren't aggressing against others with them. To me, your body and mind are your ultimate property right.

Sol

[solomon]

Now the corporation could simply let the subsidiaries compete until one wins, but in the meantime they're wasting cash. They're better off determining when, how, and whether their subs. should compete using central planning. In essence, that's of what a government does. Think of the US as the corporation and each individual actor as a subsidiary.

Ok, I have a better idea what you are saying here. However, the last sentence is where the problem is I think. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to compare the US to a corporation. A government is not a corporation. Govts and corps act under very different incentives. A corporation is formed to respond to changes in valuations and make a profit (and therefore increase shareholder wealth). They must satisfy consumers. A government, on the other hand, doesn't 'make money' at all. In fact, they don't produce any wealth whatsoever. They don't sell anything. All they do is transfer or eliminate already-existing wealth. They can take as much money as they need, if they dress it up the right way. Their offices are secure for set terms no matter what they do. They are only interested in garnering votes, which more often than not induces them to engage in anti-freedom and anti-free market behaviors. So, the only defining characterstic of the US on a national level is its government and jurisdictional borders. Not some massive corporation. That's how I see it at least.


Evolution is essentially trying out every crazy species or species characteristic even though the majority of them don't convey any advantage. But if we know what makes a better (more efficient) creature, we can move towards it with purpose. Think how much faster artificial selection works over natural evolution.

That's true, but the market isn't some mindless machine. It is affected by purposeful human ACTION everyday, and that's the difference. The market IS moving toward something, the increased satisfaction of consumers, not mindlessly flailing about just to see what happens.

However, I think there are a few limited places where we can see that things are wasteful or going down the wrong track.

Well, I'm not going to quibble over small differences like this, but I do disagree.

Also, I don't really believe in property rights. In fact I don't believe in any rights whatsoever. Everything you have, you have only because someone is willing to let you have it.

While there are some compelling arguments that private rights are "self-evident", I generally agree there is nothing given about them. This leads into a whole discussion of what a "right" is, but whatever their origin, I do believe that a society structured around private property rights and voluntary contractual agreements is wealth maximizing, most prosperous, and generally leads to increasing civilization and living standards.

Sol

[GWB]

Originally posted by yoshomon



Let me make a simple equation. All socioeconomic systems throughout history (like Feudalism for example) have fallen, been overthrown, etc and replaced with something that was eventually 'better'. At this moment, the ruling socioeconomic system is capitalism. If you look at it historically, capitalism will eventually fall.



That's funny, that's what the communists used to say about capitalism. Here's a simple question for you. Which system fell and which one is still standing?:p

[solomon]

At this moment, the ruling socioeconomic system is capitalism.

Not really. It's more of pseudo-capitalist mercantilism.

All socioeconomic systems throughout history (like Feudalism for example) have fallen, been overthrown, etc and replaced with something that was eventually 'better'. At this moment, the ruling socioeconomic system is capitalism. If you look at it historically, capitalism will eventually fall. Essentially, it is fighting in self-defense.

This seems to assume there is no "best". How do you know we aren't at the "best" method right now of dealing with the problem of scarce resources. I believe the best is laissez faire capitalism in a minimum government (or possibly anarchy) environment.

So, do you want to fight for a dying regime?

In light of known alternatives. There's nothing inherent that causes me to defend capitalism. If you can show me a better way of allocating resources, while preserving individual freedom, I'll jump right on board.


Sol

[solomon]

For all of its inherent flaws, capitalism has created new levels of wealth that pay for social programs that help people.

Capitalism doesn't have inherent flaws. People blame capitalism for the fact of reality of scarce resources. It's not capitalism's fault that resources must be rationed and allocated and aren't limitless.

For example, the Workforce Investment Act will pay up to 15,000 dollars in retraining for eligible workers who have been laid off or when their current industry is dieing out.

That's not capitalism, that's socialism. Remember the rule that subsidizing doesn't "fix" or reduce anything, it only increases whatever is being subsidized.

[solomon]

Capitalism is not the end-all solution. It is in danger of being obsolete.

Danger of being obsolete? What's going to replace it? I see nothing. Free market trade IS the solution to the problem of scarce resource allocation...IF your goal is to allocate them in a way that is most satisfying to consumers.


However, when capitalism begins to rot to the point where the divisions causes an irreparable chasm, violence will erupt, the new social structure will be forcibly placed.

Capitalism does not cause divisions. Why do you think it's rotting? Capitalism allows people to voluntarily work together to achieve their goals.

The thing I dont think you guys have noticed is that there are not as many options as you think there are. Either you own property, no one owns property, or "everyone" (read government) owns the property. There are only so many ways of deciding who gets to decide how resources are used. Another isn't going to magically appear. Systems based around these have already been developed. The only thing that COULD happen is if in the future nanotech or something allows some technotopia to arise where resources are no longer scarce because some nano-assembler can make anything you want. Then poof the problem is gone and everyone will rejoice. But we aren't there yet.

[solomon]

True communism is a noble goal, but will ultimately fail because there are too many lazy and or stupid people about for such a egalitarian ideal to succeed.

This is a common belief that is only half true. It's true that greed is a contributing factor (of many) to the impossibility of communism. However, the MAIN reason that it cannot work is strictly economic. The price system is a SIGNAL system that guides production according to profit and loss. Without prices on the factors of production, you have no method of allocating resource use. There is no cost-accounting. No matching of inputs with outputs. It quickly leads to absolute economic chaos because you have no method of gauging how well things are being used. Communist countries can only exist if they have market/price economies to copy from.

Solomon

[solomon]

and I ponder this every day. I still dont have a solution, and I await the epiphany.

I wouldn't spend too much time on it if I were you : )

The only countries that have the same government they've had for 100's of years are ruled by despots, are in constant turmoil, or are small little places with insignificant influence in the world.

Capitalism is not a state. Capitalism is a social and economic system. States are political entities that leech off the community. The US government will probably fall. I think its very likely that it wont be too long actually. But capitalism is different from a government.

Sol

Damn I feel like I just pracitcally wrote a book by the end of all this haha

[MonkeyGirl]

Originally posted by dcXhc
I also find it interesting that the liberals seem to think that their ideas are rooted in "critical thinking" and "deep understanding" and that it is their superior education and their fearless questioning that sets them above the masses who blindly accept everything they see on TV. It goes to show that my earlier post about liberals being elitists and practicing misguided noblesse oblige was only partially ironic.

See, the way you state that makes you come off as being a holier than thou elitist yourself...funny, that.... :p

Honestly, I am so tired of "Us vs Them" politics. It's just yet another way we can alienate ourselves from each other by having yet another category to stick ourselves in. :rolleyes: Where's the love???

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
...And that's where we differ isn't it? By disagreeing with YOU, or people who think like you, and not changing my views, you consider me "thick-headed" or dismissive. Yet, I don't use phrases such as "you're an idiot", "you're argument is without merit", "I've skipped your post entirely because it's another list of meaningless fabricated points." But many of those people have. In fact, I've never said "Phreon is a blind party-follower/automaton" yet you have, multiple times. Furthermore YOU are guilty of accusing me of saying things I've never said. I challenged you on that, and you are unable to produce things to support you.

At what point did I say we are at war b/c Bush is a warmongering idiot?

Or that the war was JUST about oil?

And the other challenges I laid before YOU. Can you actually take a critical look at the accusations you made in THAT post and see how you are assuming my stances and intents without reading my messages? In fact, having a form of prejudice towards me?

this thread:
http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=94616#post94616
this post by you:
You mean to tell me you've never said the war was about nothing more than oil? Or that Bush is a stupid war monger? Or that the inspectors were working just fine and the war is not justified? Or that we were wrong for essentially telling the useless UN to fuck off? Are you really going to make me pore over past threads and cite specific quotes? What have you been smoking?

Relax dude, I'm just trying to get you to stop calling me your enemy before I open my mouth. My reputation proceeds me, but I didn't make this reputation. Others began to assume my stance was contrary because they didn't read my messages.

oh boy, you should've heard me and BT when I first got on this board. He hated me to the core, I couldnt get a word in which he read without assuming I hated him. There were many times I posted in agreeance, but he knee-jerk reacted as if I was attacking him. It was a shame.

But, unlike BS, when BT put me on ignore, he left me alone...

People like me? I never thought I'd hear you, such a just, unbiased and open minded person make such a sweeping generalization.

Well since you called me to the mat; oh how my lack of replies to every one of your posts is admission of your superiority. It's not that some of us have to travel for weeks on end. Bravo, you've quite skillfully steered the conversation away from the matter at hand.

Perhaps you've never outright said Bush is a warmonger or that the war is ONLY about oil. Maybe I let a knee jerk a little too quickly. Mea Culpa

BUT... You seem quite skillful at steering conversations and avoiding hard questions. Perhaps you've never specifically called Bush a war monger, but you have a history of Bush bashing using common (flawed) arguments that are right out of the DNC handbook. If you aren't towing the party line, then you have amazingly drawn the exact same conclusions and cite the same examples I read daily.

You have blamed a weak economy on Bush, ingoring the fact that he couldn't have possibly caused the effects so quickly after taking office (and that the economic bust was actually set up in the late 90's).

You have compared GWB to Hitler

You even tried to drag Bush into the discussion when the Space Shuttle disintigrated.

If you consistantly use arguments Democrats use and regularly bash republicans, what conclusion would a normal person draw?

You accuse people of attacking you when they do not ascribe to your interesting ideas while at the same time feel it's your right to make sweeping generalizations like they are racists.

You call me intolerant for not accepting that your logic is as valid as my logic. Logic is logic (duh), it's not mine or yours. It's either correct or flawed. Period

I have never, EVER called you my enemy, yet even after telling you I have no personal beef several times, you repeatedly build straw men by implying that I do.

You quote the words of others and indirectly attach my name, thereby leaving yourself an easy out if caught.

Example:


you consider me "thick-headed" or dismissive. Yet, I don't use phrases such as "you're an idiot", "you're argument is without merit", "I've skipped your post entirely because it's another list of meaningless fabricated points." But many of those people have. In fact, I've never said "Phreon is a blind party-follower/automaton" yet you have, multiple times.

When have I said any of the things you've quoted? Very tricky indeed.

I actually do dismiss some of your arguments, because I know that even after having them trashed several times, you still bring them up. What's the point? I already have enough grey hair.


So I'll ask you this: why do you feel it's acceptable to draw conclusions from what people say while allowing no others the same luxury?

My we've been defensive lately, haven't we?

Phreon

[Duemellon]

this entire post is a response to Phreon, skip it if you like, but it is public record now
My we've been defensive lately, haven't we? just b/c u'r paranoid doesn't meant they aren't out to get you.People like me? I never thought I'd hear you, such a just, unbiased and open minded person make such a sweeping generalization. read slower "People who think like you". Who did I include? Those people who think like you in that area. But oh well, u'd rather call that a SWEEPING generalization when in fact I truly meant "people who think like you". I dont see how that includes those I didn't mean to include... u'kno... those people who "dont think like you" on that topic. (ppl who THINK like you is diff than ppl LIKE you, or saying Rep/Dem)If you consistantly use arguments Democrats use and regularly bash republicans, what conclusion would a normal person draw? They could draw the conclusion that he argues party lines, but leave room for the possibility they found this info through their own drawn conclusions... maybe... perhaps... it's a possibility. I mean, if I read the Enquirer day in and day out, and draw my decisions from it, i'd be agains the boycott, pro-Hagan (the person who ran vs. Taft), and believing the Bengals will have a 0.500 season. But i dont, b/c i take their info and weight it against info from friends, personal logical screening, and other sources. But, i must admit, the Enq is my main source of info (accurate, inaccurate, biased, or objective).You accuse people of attacking you when they do not ascribe to your interesting ideas while at the same time feel it's your right to make sweeping generalizations like they are racists. let me say clearly for all to hear, if you are in this society, at some point, you will act racist. There, said it. Said one of my biggest and most heinous things ever. Do I believe it? Yes. Do you want to hear how? Maybe, maybe not. But I accused BS of being racist, not you, not your cousin, not anyone else (until now). That "racist" word just gets you outta ur seat doesn't it? It'd be like calling some a Saddam-backer, or anti-American, or somethin like that? huh?

In fact, I've never said "Phreon is a blind party-follower/automaton" yet you have, multiple times.
vs.
When have I said any of the things you've quoted? Very tricky indeed.http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=90310#post90310
such a stance is insinuated in this "I wonder if you'd be bitching this much if KlinTon had the backbone to take the actions we are right now?"
http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=90815#post90815
insinuation #2 "Due, if you are going to spout your rhetoric based on extreme partisanship, why won't you at least be honest about it?"
http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=73085#post73085
Not as precise, more like a CoMD (Comment of Mass Denouncement) by using a reverse satirical line "but why such a one sided argument? Democrat bashing not in vogue around here?"

unfortunately, the post where you clearly accused me of being anti-Bush b/c I'm a democrat, has unfortunately been lost to the ages... but these both show evidence of such a statement. Now, of course, you could say you never said it the precise line immediately above, but you can't deny the others.Yet, I don't use phrases such as "you're an idiot", http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=87207#post87207
So who did you mean by "There are no stupid questions, just stupid people,"?you consider me "thick-headed" or dismissive.http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=85521#post85521
in which you say "BigSug is right, you do wear blinders. Your comments are always from a narrow, predictable point of view." Coupling a statement with indefinites, superlatives, and absolutes. Nothin' like it. Oh, in that same post here's more "I could go on in on, but I'm growing weary of pointing out the constant errors in your logic, the false facts and laser beam narrowness of your assertions. You will always have a rebuttal, no matter how contrived and erronious."

And to throw in your inability to relax and catch some self-bashing comedy:
http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=89399#post89399
"Due, you truely a TROLL among trolls. "

There, i did it. I searched through available messages and provided you with quotes from what you said. Sure, there are moments of insults, ridicule, and general bashing from you, but that's what flamin is all about.

Now, do me the fav and find those times I've said "you're an idiot" or "You blindly follow party lines." Sure, you and me constantly dismiss the other's argument out-of-hand sometimes, that what happens when you disagree. Sure, not for EVERYONE, but when two people who KNOW they're right, get together and they aren't "right" about the same things, they will have trouble listening to the other in an open and discussive manner.

[classicgrrl]

good god you two - get a room!

[Duemellon]

Phreon,

Well, i expect you'r taking the time to look up information, or formulate an insightful (or inciteful, both fit) retort. That must be why my proof of your comments hasn't been responded to.

I await your admittance that you said such things. No, I'm not asking an apology for them b/c I can't help but think you feel that way. I'm just showing you proof.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by GWB
That's funny, that's what the communists used to say about capitalism. Here's a simple question for you. Which system fell and which one is still standing?:p

The communists were actually 'right' about half of it. Capitalism will end and be replaced by something 'better'.

However, the communism that you are referring to was not 'better'.

And by communist I think you mean USSR, etc. Those were of course fine examples of state capitalism... but oh well.

Conservatives and liberals are actually in the same boat... both want to society to remain relatively the same. Neither are able to formulate solutions to the basic problems that society faces. Essentially, it doesn't matter who gets elected because any change that does occur will be very slight.

A lot (all?) of Leftist and Liberal leaders ARE elitist fucks. Now Conservative leaders on the other hand are just a bunch of rich fucks. Both libs and consact in interest of the rich (by keeping society as it is). Liberals actually do more to keep capitalism around than conservatives do... bigger cages, longer chains.

I kissed Gorge Bush and Josif Stolen!

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Phreon,

Well, i expect you'r taking the time to look up information, or formulate an insightful (or inciteful, both fit) retort. That must be why my proof of your comments hasn't been responded to.

I await your admittance that you said such things. No, I'm not asking an apology for them b/c I can't help but think you feel that way. I'm just showing you proof.

Actually Due, I had this longwinded speech planned, but honestly, I'm just to fucking burnt out (job, you, etc.) to really care anymore.

I'll just state a few things:
You almost had me buying into the guilt, but I'm not sorry for a damned thing I've said; I stand by my statements. In the context of the discussions they came from, the things I said ring true. You dismiss and evade as much as anyone on this board.

I did not insult you in any of the threads you listed; you just inferred (something only you're permitted). And the message you cite as being lost to time simply doesn't exist; I haven't been posting on these boards that long.

Why are you allowed to draw conclusions when I'm not?

Rebly if you like, but really this thread is spent. Just think about why people (I'm not the only one) see you using the same predictable arguments?

A rose by any other name is still a rose; if you bash Bush at every turn, I'm going to question your behavior during the Clinton years.

If it'll make you feel bigger, believe you won the arguement. (It's not about winning, you know).


Phreon

[Duemellon]

Ok Phreon, I'm glad to see you conceded that you said such things and I have not.

Please don't act as if I did say such things. Take the time to understand my points, and try to understand I often bring in a viewpoint that is NOT what the others are saying (on either side).

My views are drawn from my viewpoint. I have different sets of information and take a different approach. I have not dismissed your posts out-of-hand, called you an idiot, or started calling you names (first, and I don't think at all). Please be more considerate of those who have a different opinion than the norms (lib/conv, dem/rep, blk/wht, tall/shrt, tomato/hay).

[classicgrrl]

This is how liberals are truly created:
:mad:

Drug companies. Since patents are running out on Clariton D and Allegra the companies have decided not to sell through in insurance and go over the counter so they can hike the price and make as much profit as possible. Due to this ingenius idea I and about a million other people are sicker than snot (and we got plenty of that too). I feel like I have an elephant sitting on my chest and am getting around 2-4 hours of sleep at a time before I wake up coughing and gagging my fool head off. Loss of work time due to sickness also means loss of productivty...but hey, as long as the CEO and shareholders get to keep their 2nd homes in Aspen...

I guess since I dont make a six figure I am not as entitled to proper health care as some of my other fellow American citizens....

Clariton D:
Before = $20 per bottle
After = $114 per bottle ($3.80 per pill)

*bow down before the one you serve; you're going to get what you deserve*

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
Ok Phreon, I'm glad to see you conceded that you said such things and I have not.

Please don't act as if I did say such things. Take the time to understand my points, and try to understand I often bring in a viewpoint that is NOT what the others are saying (on either side).

My views are drawn from my viewpoint. I have different sets of information and take a different approach. I have not dismissed your posts out-of-hand, called you an idiot, or started calling you names (first, and I don't think at all). Please be more considerate of those who have a different opinion than the norms (lib/conv, dem/rep, blk/wht, tall/shrt, tomato/hay).

One more thing....
Of course your views are drawn from your viewpoint. But how did you reach those conclusions and where did you get your information? Perhaps your information and those who assemble it are from a similar bent?


Take the time to seriously consider the biases of your information sources. Listen to "the enemy" and consider their views before dismissing them. It amazes me how people (not you neccesrilly) can cite Michael Moore as their information source! He and Hannidy (sp) may be diametrically opposed and do speak the truth from time to time, but both equally useless for information when considered exclusively.

I may use satire and I may bash your reasoning (even calling it idiotic), but when have I said 'Due is an idiot"? Bad logic is bad logic.

I'll be more considerate when you step off your moral bully pulpit. I'll be as big of an ass as I choose.

Here you are sucking me in again. I'm too damn tired for this. No fair, I'm getting woozy on Nyquil.


Phreon

[Phreon]

Originally posted by classicgrrl
This is how liberals are truly created:
:mad:

Drug companies. Since patents are running out on Clariton D and Allegra the companies have decided not to sell through in insurance and go over the counter so they can hike the price and make as much profit as possible. Due to this ingenius idea I and about a million other people are sicker than snot (and we got plenty of that too). I feel like I have an elephant sitting on my chest and am getting around 2-4 hours of sleep at a time before I wake up coughing and gagging my fool head off. Loss of work time due to sickness also means loss of productivty...but hey, as long as the CEO and shareholders get to keep their 2nd homes in Aspen...

I guess since I dont make a six figure I am not as entitled to proper health care as some of my other fellow American citizens....

Clariton D:
Before = $20 per bottle
After = $114 per bottle ($3.80 per pill)

*bow down before the one you serve; you're going to get what you deserve*

Fear not, if the patent of Clariton is about to run out, then the generic equiv. is soon to hit the shelves.

Insurance (medical, auto...) is a huge fucking scam. I've paid enough auto insurance to build a whole new car, yet if I have a minor fender bender, my rates'll go up. What's up with that?
Just give me my damn money back

Phreon

[Duemellon]

Here you are sucking me in again.that sounded amazingly sexual...

maybe it's just been awhile.I may use satire and I may bash your reasoning (even calling it idiotic), but when have I said 'Due is an idiot"? Bad logic is bad logic. bashing the other's posts is fair game. That's what you do when in a message board. You did say I was "stupid", as highlighted up there. So i chose to remember "idiot" versus "stupid". Pretty much the same thing.

http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?...87207#post87207
So who did you mean by "There are no stupid questions, just stupid people,"?

All the same, that's over.

I really hope no one uses Michael Moore as their SOLE information source of utter and total truth. That's scary that someone would chose satire and superlatives as their knowledge.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by classicgrrl
This is how liberals are truly created:
:mad:

Drug companies. Since patents are running out on Clariton D and Allegra the companies have decided not to sell through in insurance and go over the counter so they can hike the price and make as much profit as possible. Due to this ingenius idea I and about a million other people are sicker than snot (and we got plenty of that too). I feel like I have an elephant sitting on my chest and am getting around 2-4 hours of sleep at a time before I wake up coughing and gagging my fool head off. Loss of work time due to sickness also means loss of productivty...but hey, as long as the CEO and shareholders get to keep their 2nd homes in Aspen...

I guess since I dont make a six figure I am not as entitled to proper health care as some of my other fellow American citizens....

Clariton D:
Before = $20 per bottle
After = $114 per bottle ($3.80 per pill)

*bow down before the one you serve; you're going to get what you deserve*

Not to imply that drug companies aren't making a mint off their allergy drug sales, but I think the impetus for OTC allergy drugs was an insurance industry lawsuit. Insurance companies didn't want to keep paying your doctor bills and the difference between your $20 co-pay and their $114 total cost, so they petitioned the FDA to mandate that most allergy drugs could be sold without a prescription, since they are safer than most traditionally OTC antihistamines.

So I think it's the insurance executives and their second homes in Aspen that you really want to bash.

[classicgrrl]

thats true dc - truthfully the two industries are in bed with each other but thats another thread.

Phreon-yes there will be competition soon but they went OTC back in the winter and in the meantime I am getting four hours of sleep per night and am experiencing a HUGE loss of productivity at work.

I bought the crap yesterday I just hope it works and soon...my vocals chords are shot to hell!

[Danosaur]

Ya know, just because others have a whole bunch more than I do doesn't mean I care. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't make much money (under 15,000). But things are fine. F*#% Aspen, and F*#% luxury cars too. I don't want their lives and never have, and I sure as hell don't expect rich people to make my life any easier. If they cared they wouldn't be rich, they would have put it to a good cause. Life's not fair, F*#%ing whoopee-de-do.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Ya know, just because others have a whole bunch more than I do doesn't mean I care. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't make much money (under 15,000). But things are fine. F*#% Aspen, and F*#% luxury cars too. I don't want their lives and never had, and I sure as hell don't expect rich people to make my life any easier. If they cared they wouldn't be rich, they would have put it to a good cause. Life's not fair, F*#%ing whoopee-de-do.

Dano you missed my point. I am very sick because of this decision made in the name of profit. I dont care what they buy with it.

My allergy related bronchitis is preventable if I take both the Clariton D and Flonase prescribed to me. But I was not able to take Clariton D because I couldnt afford it. At the moment, my doctor tells me there is no generic substitute. When the patent runs out there will be...

Maybe you should hear me coughing at 1:00 AM and gasping for air the way my room-mate has to...

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
that sounded amazingly sexual...

Uhh...whatever dude.

maybe it's just been awhile.bashing the other's posts is fair game. That's what you do when in a message board. You did say I was "stupid", as highlighted up there. So i chose to remember "idiot" versus "stupid". Pretty much the same thing.


http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?...87207#post87207
So who did you mean by "There are no stupid questions, just stupid people,"?

I was being facetious. If I wanted to call you stupid, I'd say "Due is stupid". Due, stop taking everything so damn personally.

That last sentence was directed at you.


Phreon

[Danosaur]

I am sorry classicgrrl. I did miss understand you. Yeah that blows. I would also point out that drug companies spend tons of money getting their drugs passed by the FDA and on insurance to cover lawsuits. These added costs do not help much. Excuse me for my rant. I am hyper sensitive towards people who want to legislate Robin Hood policies on the rich. But your issue has to do with patents that fly in the face of a free market. No one told BMW they couldn't make an SUV just because ford had thought of it first. But, that's a pretty bad analogy.

[RichmondVA]

Can I just say that I think some of you are seriously stereotyping and mislabeling liberals? Everyone seems to have their panties all in a bunch against accusations of conservatives being a rich, heartless people who care only for themselves. But I read the posts and I see a lot more accusations about liberals being intellectual snobs or panty-waisted buffoons than the other way around.

I don't believe in government because I think I'm so smart that I know what's good for everyone and want control. If I felt that way I would go all Ayn Rand and be super-conservative, NOT liberal. By being somewhat liberal I'm RELINQUISHING control and power, not sezing it. My dad works for the EPA. He has a degree in civil engineering and because of his length of service he's probably studied the environment and enivronmental issues for 25 years. Do you really think you know more about what's right for the environment than he does? Who's arrogant now?

Similarly, the idea that liberals are all bleeding hearts who feel guilty about their money is not necessarily true. I know a lot of conservatives who refuse to think about redistribution of wealth as anything other than a moral issue. Myself, I could care less about whether the poor deserve the money. I don't care if you've derailed your life with drugs or similarly played yourself. What I DO care about is that I'd rather give you $10 upfront as opposed to having you kill me for it. I'd rather give you money for healthcare as opposed to you not seeking treatment for some contagious disease that you then spread around.

How many conservatives are on this board advocating the war? How do you pay for that, if not with taxes? How do you win it without some level of central planning?

[postfeminist]

RichVA said:
Myself, I could care less about whether the poor deserve the money. I don't care if you've derailed your life with drugs or similarly played yourself. What I DO care about is that I'd rather give you $10 upfront as opposed to having you kill me for it. I'd rather give you money for healthcare as opposed to you not seeking treatment for some contagious disease that you then spread around.

WORD! I totally agree...just didn't have the right words to articulate it. thanks!

[Danosaur]

You’re wrong about Ayn Rand. She believed she deserved to choose her own path; it wasn't about collecting power. Second, Rand was not for occupying other countries. She is the Queen of Libertarianism. Libs believe the military is for protecting the homeland only, not going over to other countries and starting fights, and definitely not occupying other countries. Beyond that, a basic tenet of leftist ideology is that the government is out to help us. I'm sorry but I don't want any of those ass-munchers looking out for me. I can take care of myself just fine thank you. The government has become so large, so complicated, and it is so slow to change. The FBI and CIA can now read my email and search my home without letting me know. Billions of dollars are spent on a loosing war on drugs, and millions sit in jail. Thanks to liberal ideology we are less free than ever. Using the Gov't to help others seems like such the right thing when your intentions are good, but it never comes out that way, we become the targeted and persecuted. GRRRRR!

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Danosaur
I am sorry classicgrrl.

Its all good Dano. Dano...I am going to buy a hamster and name it Dano.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

What I DO care about is that I'd rather give you $10 upfront as opposed to having you kill me for it.

Dude, I will totally kill you if you don't give me $10. You can paypal it to me........ ;)

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Can I just say that I think some of you are seriously stereotyping and mislabeling liberals? Everyone seems to have their panties all in a bunch against accusations of conservatives being a rich, heartless people who care only for themselves. But I read the posts and I see a lot more accusations about liberals being intellectual snobs or panty-waisted buffoons than the other way around.

Since I lobbed one of the "intellectual snob" bombs, I'll respond. Mainly I was reacting to Docta's assertion that Liberals are created through higher education and deep thinking. The implication seemed to be that education and deep thinking would naturally create a person with liberal tendencies. That struck me as a bit elitist. (In the spirit of fairness -- Docta did later qualify his thoughts and stated that Conservatives can also be well educated and thoughtful.)

It seems to me that the original sentiments are fairly accurate though. No, Liberals don't go around saying "we're better educated and we're deeper thinkers and, therefore, we know better than you," but there is an undeniable habit among liberals to cast Conservatives as rural, un(der)educated, gun loving, narrow-minded boobs. Implicit in that sentiment is the notion that Liberals are better than that.

Moreover, the essence of Liberal ideology in America is generally one of greater government involvement in the affairs of it's citizens. That is, the idea that government knows more about what's good for Americans than they know themselves. Again, that's a bit of a patronizing attitude. I'm not saying that government needs to stay out of everything -- but I do believe that a government that tries to do more, ends up serving less by creating a populace that relies too much on the state.

[Danosaur]

Dano the hamster. I like it.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Danosaur
The FBI and CIA can now read my email and search my home without letting me know. Thanks to liberal ideology we are less free than ever.

Wasnt it the Repubs who enacted the Homeland Security Act?
;)
...and you will know the hamster by the name Dano the Mano...and he shall own the place from his rolly ball...

now look what you people have done! you've gone and got me involved in this bru haha...stop it I say. Stop it!!!

[Duemellon]

but there is an undeniable habit among liberals to cast Conservatives as rural, un(der)educated, gun loving, narrow-minded boobs. Implicit in that sentiment is the notion that Liberals are better than that. wow, you sure have embellished on the idea I had about repubs...

rural? that's new. I'll have to add that to my file.
un(der)educated. That's a superalitve, in MY book, so I'l rewrite that file.
boobs. Well, i dont know if that's all bad that they are mammary glands.

...

[RichmondVA]

I believe that the government is better at managing SOME things, but certainly not all. Not even a decent-size minority. I think most of you are in agreement-- the only discrepency is in the specific amount, method, and types of government action. It might seem like a big difference but liberals and conservatives in the US are not actually much different in the overall scheme of things. Just ask Yoshomon. :p

As for bashing the other side, we're all guilty of it sometimes. And it's funny because these labels are the result of self-identification. Virginia is a pretty conservative state, especially in the Southern part, and especially right now. I have friends from New England that identify themselves as conservative. And we'll start talking and we'll both start off kinda spouting the party line a bit. But then when we get into the details, it ends up that our political views are almost exactly the same. We've just gotten into the unfortunate habit of associating liberals with the Kennedys or conservatives with Buchanan.

Another example: I share the same concerns as Danasaur but in my mind I think of the whole war on drugs and abuse of police power as products of conservatives. Hoover and McCarthy were conservatives. As classicgrrl pointed out, Bush's administration certainly hasn't been too kind to free speech. Most free speech groups I know of are viewed as liberal. But blaming each other doesn't get us anywhere. What's more important is fixing the problem.

[Danosaur]

Liberal and conservative definitions have been taken out of context by democrats and republicans. Bush is not a conservative. He does not believe people can manage themselves without a large amount of federal interference. Bush and his administration are expanding the power and scope of the federal government in major ways. Ashcroft doesn't believe that states can decide for themselves such issues as drug laws and euthanasia. The Bush administration's use of federal powers has socialist tendencies. But unlike Europe, Bush's socialist ideal is based on fundamental Christian values. For the true conservative, Bush is a much bigger threat to freedom than Clinton was. Clinton would tax my money, while Bush is more likely to tax my private business. As we all know, liberal and conservative political theory has developed cultural personalities, and the conservative personality (christian gun-slingers) is the only thing that can be associated as conservative when it comes to Bush. Those personalities are what we fight over more often than actual liberal and conservative political theory. You may distrust business more than Gov't, but I believe that you're more likely to hate me if I supported Bush's cultural values.

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Danosaur
but I believe that you're more likely to hate me if I supported Bush's cultural values.

Bush has cultural values???? Shit fire-when did this happen? :eek:

dang perhaps I should pull the television out from the closet....




on second thought: NAH!

the past two posts, were however, quite intelligent. Both parties have been expanding gov. in various ways...frankly, without the stereotypes you cant really tell the difference between the two "poles"

viva la stereotypes! :D

[Darth Sandmich!]

I'm of the opinion, that the more you become an expert in certain areas, the more ignorant you become of others. I think this line endears especially highly educated professors to becoming hard core commies. Everyone's mind is of limited capacity, and since PhDs have filled there minds with what is often needless crap, they would become incapable of making rational dicisions outside of their field of research (if even then).

(BTW, that enilightened self righteous crappy attitude from the 'collegiate enlightened' is exactly what leads to ridiculos ideas, i.e. I believe it, so it must be true cause I'm sooooooo friggin' smart. Well f@ck off, you're actually more prone to having an idiodic idea than an Arabian dirt farmer.)

[Darth Sandmich!]

I’m having problems getting that mindset out of my head, it cuts to the chase on a wide variety of issues. For an example of my frustration, I searched in vain for a coherent argument against the war in Iraq, but all I could find, were smug self-righteous comments along the same lines…

Me: What would you do about [problem]?

Enlightened: Ooooohhhh, I’m soooooo friign’ smart! If only they’d leave it to me and my ilk, the whole problem would be solved!

Me: Fine, what would your solution be?

Enlightened: You ignorant barbarian, you aren’t nearly SMART enough to understand the complexities of the issue! You must leave it to open minded intelligent people like me because I am sooooo friggin’ smart! Did I mention I care too? I care sooooooo much more than you, why better to let an orangutan handle the problem than you because I care sooooooo much and I’m soooooo friggn’ smart, just look at my diploma, it says I’m smart! And only smart people like me are smart enough to figure out who to care for and when!

[IPrayForSound]

Man...3 posts in a row that looked like they were leading away from the name-calling , all for nothing.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound
Man...3 posts in a row that looked like they were leading away from the name-calling , all for nothing.

I'm pretty sure three is the maximum. It's some sort of Newtonian Law of Physics, I think.

[IPrayForSound]

Oh....alright then. I retract my comment. But since this would be the 3rd in a row, I'll go ahead and make sure no one will have the chance to break this rule.....*ahem*

ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE POOPHEADS

[Duemellon]

I'm of the opinion, that the more you become an expert in certain areas, the more ignorant you become of othersDepends on your expertise. it is quite possible to learn 17 languages before you die, and keep trying to learn more. Language use has nothing to do with being opinionated.Everyone's mind is of limited capacity,yes and no. We have found people to reach a 'limit' because... well,... they die. Or a disease strikes.

As I understand it at a certain point, we begin filing information by associating new information as links to previous, but not as "brand new" and complete file.

Meaning, you see the fruit "persimmon" for the first time. The only associations you make (at a certain point) is that a persimmon looks like a bell pepper, is the color of an orange, and tastes like sugar. Meanwhile, apple, pear, and orange, are all deeper more expansive comprehensions of those fruits. So... you still learn, but not the same way. (someone help explain this better)

in all actuality, your post sounds like someone who has a particular resentment towards intelligensia and you justify your stance by recommending a degree of intellectual restraint over an incessant pursuit of information.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by Darth Sandmich!
Everyone's mind is of limited capacity, and since PhDs have filled there minds with what is often needless crap, they would become incapable of making rational dicisions outside of their field of research (if even then).

Everyone's mind is of limited capacity, but some are more limited than others. Sadly, one of the consequences of stupidity is that you lack the mental acuity to grasp exactly how stupid you are. You'll just have to trust me when I say I'm smarter than you. Because I am.

I got enough brainpower solve the whole Mideast crisis peacefully in the space of minutes. With enough juice left in the tank that I can perfom a undulating dance while going "Nyaaah, nyaah I'm sooooo much smarter than yooooouuuu!" at the same time.

[butter_of_69]

I think the conservative tendency to refer to liberals as the "intellectual elite" actually perpetuates the stereotype that liberals are better educated than most.

[solomon]

Hi

I don't believe in government because I think I'm so smart that I know what's good for everyone and want control. If I felt that way I would go all Ayn Rand and be super-conservative, NOT liberal.

Yeah I think this is a mischaracterization. Someone who doesn't believe in government at all, like me, isn't saying take all the power over the people from government, and give all the power over the people to me. I'm not saying I know whats best for everyone else, or what decisions they should make, or how they value things. Just let me make these decisions FOR ME, and don't force your ideas on me. It's not that I want control of others, I just want control of me.

He has a degree in civil engineering and because of his length of service he's probably studied the environment and enivronmental issues for 25 years. Do you really think you know more about what's right for the environment than he does? Who's arrogant now?

But see, you aren't seeing the issue clearly I don't think. The question isn't "what do we do to make the environment this clean?" Your dad may very well know the answer to that. The question is how clean do the consumers REALLY want the environment to be? Is there a "correct" amount that should be enforced by government? I say no. Prices are formed by supply and consumer valuations, as I"m sure you know, and businesses respond to those valuations. The fact of the matter is that I don't really think most people give a SQUAT about the environment, despite all the lip service. In other words, it isn't very high on their value scale. Will people spend another dollar on a coke if coca cola becomes more environmentally friendly? Will people pay another $30 on a plane ticket if the airline reduces emissions? No, they won't. Because it's just not that important to them. They would rather have a cheaper coke and cheaper airline ticket than a cleaner environment. Of course, when its so easy as having the government hold the companies up and make THEM take on unjustified costs, they can have their cake and eat it too.

Similarly, the idea that liberals are all bleeding hearts who feel guilty about their money is not necessarily true. I know a lot of conservatives who refuse to think about redistribution of wealth as anything other than a moral issue.

Not all liberals are bleeding hearts. Some are just plain evil. : ) Just kidding. No really, I think the whole "guilt about success/money" thing comes from the nationwide dominance of christianity and christian values. Personally, I think it's a shame.

I don't care if you've derailed your life with drugs or similarly played yourself. What I DO care about is that I'd rather give you $10 upfront as opposed to having you kill me for it. I'd rather give you money for healthcare as opposed to you not seeking treatment for some contagious disease that you then spread around.

Ok, so why don't you just pay it yourself then? How does this lead to the idea that the government must extract it by force, or it won't get done?

[solomon]

She believed she deserved to choose her own path; it wasn't about collecting power.

Haha...that was what she said. How much do you know about Rand? She was a power FANATIC in her own little cult. It's really bizarre when you read about it. Not to say I don't like Rand. I've read four of her books, and I think a lot of people would be better off if they read them. But in some ways she was really out there. Either way, the libertarian movement (as much as there is one) wouldn't be half of what it is without her.

Second, Rand was not for occupying other countries.

I don't know if you are relating this to Iraq, but I believe if you check the Rand institute site, they are all for the war on Iraq.

Thanks to liberal ideology we are less free than ever.

As others have pointed out, this isn't just the result of "liberal" ideology. It's "conservative" ideology too, since in ESSENCE, they are the same ideology. Both see government the same way ultimately..as a means of controlling and correcting problems and redirecting resources to areas deemed more valuable by them, not of protecting rights and freedom.

Sol

[butter_of_69]

You HAVE control of you. If you don't want a government or society to force their ideas on you, than you need to build a rocket into outer space and live on the moon, and then you can make your own rules.

Or hang yourself. That's making your own rules too. Aside from that, you choose to live within a society. All societies (with rare exception) on Earth have a ruling class or system which gives power to the very few to decide things for the many. To suggest that things would be better run without a centralized power system of some sort, to me, is lunacy.

Saying that companies can police their own emissions is laughable. They could, but the planet will be uninhabitable with a matter of a few (very few) centuries. If you don't care about that, you're either shortsighted, or naive, or both.

And to suggest that people need to take responsibility to care for drug addicts or criminals instead of having a government to enforce law and help with treatment is kooky in quite a number of ways as well.

[RichmondVA]

ahhh, solomon. You are a true libertarian. Glad to see that you can see that for all of Ayn Rand's liberatarian views, she was kooky at best and in some instance downright creepy.

What is about people whose names end in "mon" and their anti-government tendencies? Just kidding. I guess my response is that I agree see that the government restricts your property rights, and that is not a good thing. In a perfect world, I agree entirely with your viewpoints. The problem is, I don't TRULY have any property rights without the government.

If this government didn't restrict my rights in some way, someone else would. Sure, I'm limited in some ways, but I also know that the government is there to prosecute thieves and trespassers who would take away my stuff. I don't like the idea of sitting on my front lawn with a shotgun and hoping I've got enough firepower to stop the looters.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by solomon
But see, you aren't seeing the issue clearly I don't think. The question isn't "what do we do to make the environment this clean?" Your dad may very well know the answer to that. The question is how clean do the consumers REALLY want the environment to be? Is there a "correct" amount that should be enforced by government?

I hear you. I agree that at a certain level there isn't a fundamental "right" level for cleanliness. In theory, letting consumers choose via the marketplace should lead to the best results.

Unfortunately, there's an information asymmetry here. I don't think consumers are clearly able to articulate their preferences. Most Americans don't have the knowledge to know what effect 1 ppb of ketone has on water. If they did, they might very well be willing to pay the extra $$ for Coke. Furthermore, even if they had the biological training, they don't have any idea what Coke may or may not be dumping in the water-- and by the time they find out it could be too late.

There's too much information out there for consumers to gather and process-- even about things that they care about. So the government serves a central clearinghouse of information. No, it's not perfect-- far from it. But between public interest groups, corporations, and governments you get a better balance of power.

edited: Crap. I just realized this the fabled "third post." Conservatives 5uX0r5!

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA

Unfortunately, there's an information asymmetry here.
...

There's too much information out there for consumers to gather and process-- even about things that they care about. So the government serves a central clearinghouse of information.
True about information asymmetry... but in a market economy that is an opportunity. Think of Underwriter Laboratories, the Better Business Bureau, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and Consumer Reports, all of whom take the time to rate things and serve as information clearinghouses... all w/out gov'mint getting involved. eBay customer ratings give people summary information on the experiences customers have had with a given vendor, etc. The market itself has incentives to become more efficient, improve quality and safety, and weed out the bad guys.

[Danosaur]

You make strong points against me concerning Ayn Rand. She was one of those people who knew how to control others. I am sad to see the Rand Institute folks in favor of a war that is not directly related to 9/11.

You’re wrong about the whole liberal and conservative bit. Ideologically speaking the two are both about protecting the rights and freedoms of people. The difference being when someone says my rights are being violated because person X has more money than I do, or person X got hired because of their sex and skin color. But whatever.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
True about information asymmetry... but in a market economy that is an opportunity. Think of Underwriter Laboratories, the Better Business Bureau, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and Consumer Reports, all of whom take the time to rate things and serve as information clearinghouses... all w/out gov'mint getting involved. eBay customer ratings give people summary information on the experiences customers have had with a given vendor, etc. The market itself has incentives to become more efficient, improve quality and safety, and weed out the bad guys.

True, but UL and the BBB are non-profit corporations. Therefore they aren't motivated by market incentives. I'm not sure how well they fit into the free market model. Certainly they have an incentive to cater to their contributors and provide them the information they need. But then the government does as well-- they want the votes.

Without the tax-free status as well as write-offs from contributers are they still viable? I know a lot of anti-government libertarians who donate heavily to non-profits like Nature Conservancy because they believe that this is a market-based solution to corporate power, and I would generally agree. The difference between a non-profit corporation and a government agency is a good topic for discussion.

I would have said that a great example for-profit protection would be the big accounting firms. Price-Waterhouse and KPMG's value were tied to the value and accuracy of their audits. Companies that didn't weren't trusted as much by stock buyers. Of course, that didn't work out so well with Enron. I think the free-market will correct this problem. Now that some accounting firms are not trusted, someone will step into the void and base their value on accuracy. Or else people will decide they don't care.

Still, that doesn't help the laid off Enron workers or the people who lost money. And while the economy can recover from that hit, if some corporation messes around with pollution too much and we might not be around for the market correction.

I'll agree that groups like ebay, etc. can fill the information assymetry for consumer products. I don't like it when the government tries to do consumer protection. But you can't explain pollution, disease, or foreign policy in the little 80 word allotment ebay gives you. :)

There are just certain things where the cost of information assymetry or the degree of assymetry is so great that the government needs to play a role. Am I even spelling 'assymetry' right? But I'll also concede that information problems are probably not the best argument for government intervention. I see the gov's role more as solving collective action problems or in cases where the whole underpinning of free-market theory breaks down. (eg. I don't believe that we can always measure success by total "utils;" sometimes the Rawlsian notion that we're only as good as the least member of society is correct.)

I prefer that the government interfere on as few matters as possible. But when they do get involved, I expect it to be somewhat costly and inefficient. Because if it could be done cheaply and efficiently, then the market would have already taken care of it.

[butter_of_69]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Most Americans don't have the knowledge to know what effect 1 ppb of ketone has on water.

One time, in chem lab, I poured like nearly a liter of toluene down the sink (at least I think it was toluene)... if only you could've seen the horrified look on the lab teacher's face.

"I said DON'T pour it down the sink!!!!"

[yoshomon]

It's funny that by its nature, conservatism always loses... ie, society always changes.

And it's not like liberals are progressives leading us towards the future. Nope, they don't want society to change that much... just a little tinkering here and there.

Now radicals, revolutionaries, what have you... we have always lost in the past, though we were able to change the face of the world while we lost. I feel that revolutionaries will ultimately win - most would disagree.

[Duemellon]

interesting statements regarding effect that people have in their social-stance.

I believe the revolutionaries never see their dream fully realized. I do believe that when and if their ideas come to complete fruition, it does so by being a progressive/liberal idea, so it is no longer revolutionary and ready to be consumed.

You have made an interesting statement. All in all.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by butter_of_69


One time, in chem lab, I poured like nearly a liter of toluene down the sink (at least I think it was toluene)... if only you could've seen the horrified look on the lab teacher's face.

"I said DON'T pour it down the sink!!!!"

You killed Ariel! *sniff*

When I was in high school, our bio-tech professor had us tissue-culture African Violets using some method that hadn't been done before.

I was kinda hungover and pretty much violated every rule in the book. First I snapped a pipette and cut my hand wide open. It was a "lab practical" so I tried to hide it and bled over everything. Then I set the centrifuge at the wrong speed. You're supposed end up with like a white pill thing, and I ended up with a sludgy substance. Finally, I lost track of everything and ended up drawing stuff from "waste" and injecting it into the auger, along with several cc's of blood and white goopy stuff.

Anyway, six weeks later the professor takes a look at the petri dishes. There is absolutely nothing in anyone's petri dish except mine. I can't even describe what was growing except that it stank, it was vaguely reddish, it was flourishing and had taken over the whole dish, and it was somehow just wrong. Whatever it was, it shouldn't have existed.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I believe the revolutionaries never see their dream fully realized. I do believe that when and if their ideas come to complete fruition, it does so by being a progressive/liberal idea, so it is no longer revolutionary and ready to be consumed.


Well, you've touched upon the #1 problem faced by revolutionaries.

How do you balance working towards revolution and reforming society while still under capitalism? Sometimes, we reform society so much that no one wants to revolt anymore...

[solomon]

Hi

You HAVE control of you.

Implicitly by "me" I meant "me and my property" and I CERTAINLY do not have full control over my property.

Aside from that, you choose to live within a society.

Why is it MY duty to leave? Why is it that they can't leave ME alone instead? I'm not hurting anyone. I never agreed to anything. I never signed a contract. Living in your home with your family on your own property is NOT consent to some ungrounded jurisdiction some other group claims to have over you.


All societies (with rare exception) on Earth have a ruling class or system which gives power to the very few to decide things for the many.

I never said necessarily that there shouldn't be a ruling class. In fact, I believe in the idea of natural aristocracy...that there are people who naturally and by gradual public recognition assume leadership roles through acts demonstrating superior wisdom, courage, morality, or some other attribute. Not who can spend the most money on campaign ads.

To suggest that things would be better run without a centralized power system of some sort, to me, is lunacy.

Or ignorance on your part of alternative systems, no offense. Centralized systems will develop without territorial monopolized law, but the same way other systems emerge out of the market process: trial and error and survival of the fittest. A standardization happens.

Saying that companies can police their own emissions is laughable.

They will police their emissions exactly to the point that consumers demonstrate they WANT them to through their buying preferences, which demonstrate their values. Anything else is a forcing of one person's values on another, one forcing a disutility on another. What if I want cheaper coke rather than cleaner emissions? That's when you run to whatever bozo is running for office to make sure butter's gets his way.

And to suggest that people need to take responsibility to care for drug addicts or criminals instead of having a government to enforce law and help with treatment is kooky in quite a number of ways as well.

Haha..why is this kooky? If a drug addict wants help s/he can go get it. You don't need the government to force help on them when they aren't ready, and with stolen money at that. It's only inflated drug prices caused by the government's drug prohibition that cause addicts to become criminals and hookers in the first place.

Solomon

[solomon]

Sure, I'm limited in some ways, but I also know that the government is there to prosecute thieves and trespassers who would take away my stuff. I don't like the idea of sitting on my front lawn with a shotgun and hoping I've got enough firepower to stop the looters.

Who prosecutes the thieves that are taking nearly half of your income every year? I would wager that's quite a bit more than any private thief has every stolen from you.

Also, those aren't the only two alternatives. It isn't either "massive hegemonic protection racket" OR man with basement full of weapons constantly fending off intruders. There are other possible alternatives.

Sol

[IPrayForSound]

Do you honestly believe that abolishing taxes would make life better? I'll grant you that the money management in the government would get most people fired or locked up, but in general, taxes make your life assloads easier.

[solomon]

You’re wrong about the whole liberal and conservative bit. Ideologically speaking the two are both about protecting the rights and freedoms of people.

This gets into the nature of a right and "negative" vs "positive" rights. A libertarian or conservative (maybe) is an advocate of the protection of negative rights, basically, rights to be left alone. A liberal or socialist whatever says people naturally have positive rights to things like education, housing, a car, a computer with internet connection, etc. : )

Sol

[solomon]

Do you honestly believe that abolishing taxes would make life better? I'll grant you that the money management in the government would get most people fired or locked up, but in general, taxes make your life assloads easier.

Haha.. of course I do! Please explain to me exactly how these taxes make my life easier. How can you honestly believe that the government bureaucrats can manage your money better than you can? Where's your self-confidence? : )

Solomon

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by solomon
Haha.. of course I do! Please explain to me exactly how these taxes make my life easier. How can you honestly believe that the government bureaucrats can manage your money better than you can? Where's your self-confidence? : )
I'm confident that I'll be able to save enough and invest enough to be able to live comfortably when I retire. I'm also confident, however, that I can't bring thieves, murderers, rapists and others who are harmful to society in general to pay for their crimes. I'm confident that I can't repave even 1 mile of I-71. I'm confident that without public education, I wouldn't be sitting in this office at this computer. The fact that I can get things in the mail, I can take relatively nice roads to cities hundreds of miles away, I can sleep at night with a modicum of assurance that I'll be safe until morning, and the fact that I don't have the knowledge or interest to take on even the tiniest fraction of what the government does justifies my taxes.

If there weren't any taxes, do you think any of the government-provided services and funding would be matched by the public? If so, can I have the number of your crack dealer? If someone isn't forced to pay their share (I know, there's a whole new argument in that statement alone), why the hell would they volunteer the cash?

[Bearcat]

They [Corporations] will police their emissions exactly to the point that consumers demonstrate they WANT them to through their buying preferences, which demonstrate their values.

In a perfect world that's true, but consider this... the way our economy works, some people have money, some don't ( or have less money than others). Right now, I have less money than others, and even though I prefer to purchase products and/or services that jive with my values (examples - organic food, more fuel effiecient car, more efficient power and heating in my home) those products are quite expensive, and require extra money or time (which, in our economy, is money) on my part to buy them. Thus, I have to buy the stuff that most companies currently produce, which is less expensive to me because it's cheap for them to produce. One reason it's cheap to produce, is because they don't properly control their emissions, or they just do the bare minimum. This doesn't reflect my values, but I gotta eat, get around, stay warm, and have light in the evening. Meanwhile, those companies who I'm forced to support think we see eye to eye, and continue to be lackadaisical toward their emissions policies.

Disclaimer: I don't post on these boards that often, and I have no interest in making any "message board enemies", so please note that any sarcasm that can or may be detected in this post is not directed at you or your intellect. Thanks, and have nice day!:D

[Danosaur]

So right now we have the EPA to protect us from polluting companies right? Now, if a company pollutes in my backyard and my kid is mentally retarded because of it, what happens? Does the owner go to jail? Does the manager in charge of the project go to jail? Do I receive a large some of money for my troubles or does the Gov't get the money? And what of sovereign immunity? It seems to me that without the EPA the populace would be in charge of going after polluters, and that would mean more criminal charges. It seems to me we would be better off. You pollute and hurt someone you go to jail, and you loose your company. With the kind of payoffs polluting companies would give lawyers, there would be plenty of people hot on the tails of polluters. Criminal punishments, not EPA fines. I may be wrong about this; I am by no means an expert on the issue. Someone tell me what you think.

[RichmondVA]

I'd love to see criminal sanctions for corporations that cause death through pollution or any other means. In fact, I'd advocate the death penalty. That's the kind of crime that is premeditated and carried out with cold logic. Until you make the cost (death) greater than the profit, you can't stamp it out.

Problem is, who do you punish? It's the corporation that did it, not an individual. Do you punish the Board? the stockholders? The project manager took his orders from x, who took her orders from y. You'll never establish liability. It's been this way since before the EPA even existed.

[Danosaur]

I believe all members of a corporation who are responsible for making sure the company doesn't harm others could be guilty in such a situation. You would start from the top and work your way down. It is the responsibility of the leader to run a clean operation. Of course you could end up with a case were you have a completely negligent employee responsible for damages caused by an otherwise clean corporation. In that case that one person would be responsible. But, normally I think these things happen because of policies within a company.

I whole heartily disagree with the death penalty. Innocent people get put to death. No matter how deserving a person is of the death penalty, it is not a viable option if we know even one innocent person is bound to die . We should be better than that. Vengeance is lost when we accept innocent death.

[solomon]

Hi

I'm also confident, however, that I can't bring thieves, murderers, rapists and others who are harmful to society in general to pay for their crimes.

Look, theoretically, I am for the complete abolition of taxes. But if we got taxes, TOTAL, down to 10% of income, for the purpose of defense only, I would probably not bitch too much. I would still argue my anarcho-capitalist position, but it wouldn't be nearly as urgent.

I'm confident that I can't repave even 1 mile of I-71.

You wouldn't have to. There's no reason why companies can't take care of roads. It's just that the government as taxer/monopoly HAS to have control of roads, ultimately in order to GET to you to get your taxes. That's how it's always been. The government, with its ease of acquiring funds, over-produces roads as it is.

I'm confident that without public education, I wouldn't be sitting in this office at this computer.

That is DEFINITELY not true. The government has warped and distorted market signals in education terribly. As I've said before, the incentive for public schools isn't to get better to get more customers, it's to have more and greater problems in order to get more government funding. Plus, there'd be cheaper private schools if the kids who went didn't have to pay twice for schooling.

The fact that I can get things in the mail

Come on now, stop being ridiculous. You really don't think a company like FedEx or UPS could take care of the mail? You just will not possibly be able to get mail without the USPS? Which, by the way, is billions in the red. That says something about resource use. In the market, this totally inefficient "company" would have been out of business years ago and a company that could use resources in a profitable way would take its place.

If there weren't any taxes, do you think any of the government-provided services and funding would be matched by the public?

The point I'm trying to make is what if the services or funding AREN'T matched privately? This is TELLING you something. It's not the private sector that is "wrong" since they are following a profit/loss signal which is BASED on the demonstration of consumer values. If a good or service cannot make a profit, then it is NOT as highly valued as other ways the same resources can be used. In other words, it is a wasteful way of using resources, as deemed by consumers. Who are we to force our values on them?

Sol

[solomon]

Thus, I have to buy the stuff that most companies currently produce, which is less expensive to me because it's cheap for them to produce. One reason it's cheap to produce, is because they don't properly control their emissions, or they just do the bare minimum.

Ok. You've just shown my point. You made a choice. You prefer cheaper products to cleaner emissions. The product is cheaper because they don't spend as much on emissions, and this is good for you because you are in a tight money situation. So how would you like it if the government came in and forced emissions standards even HIGHER, driving up prices for you? You can't answer by saying, yeah that'd be ok since I value the environment, since you are capable of making the same choice right now, without the government.

This doesn't reflect my values, but I gotta eat, get around, stay warm, and have light in the evening. Meanwhile those companies who I'm forced to support think we see eye to eye, and continue to be lackadaisical toward their emissions policies.

It does reflect your value scale. You would rather have a more comfortable living environment than cleaner emissions. There's nothing wrong with that, so would I. But they ARE responding to you. You ARE seeing eye to eye with the companies. They see by how you are spending your money that you would rather have cheaper products than cleaner emissions.

and continue to be lackadaisical toward their emissions policies.

I don't understand. Do you want cheaper products/dirtier emissions, or more expensive products/cleaner emissions? You just said you buy the cheap products, but the expensive ones are there for you to buy too. So which do you buy?

Sol

[yoshomon]

Yeah, right, corporations don't control what people buy.

And clothing commercials have NOTHING to do with eating disorders.

[Bearcat]

Thanks for the reply!

Ok. You've just shown my point. You made a choice. You prefer cheaper products to cleaner emissions.

Actually, I think you missed MY point, or else I didn't make myself clear. Money is tight for me right now, I buy the cheap stuff because it's ALL I can afford. I don't HAVE a choice, it's the cheap stuff or nothin'. Well, I suppose I could sink my entire grocery budget into nothing but... let's say... all naturally grown oranges, but I'd rather be able to eat a little more variety.


They will police their emissions exactly to the point that consumers demonstrate they WANT them to through their buying preferences, which demonstrate their values.

Maybe, I'm missing YOUR point, but to me, this statement implies that only people with ample amounts of money can make their values known to companies.
To put it another way, the typical Wal-Mart customer (in my experience) doesn't shop there because they especially love Wal-Mart's merchandise or the money it saves them, the shop there because they lack additional income to spend their money elsewhere. —No offense to Wal-Mart shoppers.—

All I'm trying to get at is, that, because of limited resources, I can't afford my vales. Ain't life a bitch?!

Later ;)

Sol, I forgot to add, I really do agree with most of the rest of what you're saying (the private sector can take care of, more efficiently, many things that the Gov't totally blows at doing). However, I still think the private sector gives the environment and the less fortunate the short end of the stick.

[solomon]

Hi

Yeah, right, corporations don't control what people buy.

And clothing commercials have NOTHING to do with eating disorders.

Clothing commercials.. and television shows and magazines and movies and the hot girl at school have to do with eating disorders, and that's only because instead of women feeling they have to compete with the prettiest girl in the village like they did in the past, they are shown the prettiest women in the country/world.

And companies do not necessarily create what is considered beautiful. If Calvin Klein started using 300 lb models, they wouldn't magically be considered the ideal standard of beauty and sexiness.
Companies respond to pre-existing needs and wants, like the desire to fit in or stand out, be attractive, etc.

Solomon

[solomon]

Hi

Money is tight for me right now, I buy the cheap stuff because it's ALL I can afford.

So let me ask you this then. In your CURRENT situation (not the situation you would LIKE to be in), would you rather have the cheap products available to you, or only expensive cleaner products?

I think you are mistaking what I mean by values. I don't mean necessarily "values" like children and education and environment, i mean your ENTIRE scale of values and worth. For instance, right now, when you read this, sitting at your computer is the MOST valuable thing you could be doing with your time, out of the options that are available to you. It's the thing you would most like to be doing. Otherwise, you would be doing something else.

Your value scale is definitely partly determined by your situation. Right now, maybe I would like to ONLY buy gold silverware ideally, but my monetary situation prevents me from doing this. So I would rather have cheap silverware available , so that I can have silverware at all, than ONLY having expensive gold silverware available, even though ultimately I would like to HAVE the gold silverware.

Jesus. Do you see what I'm saying? This is kind of hard for me to explain , as you can probably tell haha

Sol

[Darth Sandmich!]

FYIFormer Enron adviser Paul Krugman is frustrated by democracy. "If American families knew what was good for them, then most of them--all but a small, affluent minority--would cheerfully give up their tax cuts in return for a guarantee that health care would be there when needed," he opines in today's New York Times.i.e. If everyone was soooooooo friggin' smart like me, they would give up their tax cuts!

[yoshomon]

... emotional attachments to consumer culture...
... buying of commodities to feel 'better'...
... use of television as a socially accepted opiate...
... apathy...

[solomon]

... emotional attachments to consumer culture...
... buying of commodities to feel 'better'...


Ok, so just sit back and revel in how smart you are that you don't fall for this nonsense. I'm not saying I ADVOCATE massive consumption, or that people use "things" to feel better about themselves. Just because I think they should be free to do these things, doesn't mean I advocate them or think they are "good." I lead my life by what I think is good, I'm not going to tell anyone else how to lead theirs, unless they ask for my advice/opinion.

Sol

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by solomon
Ok, so just sit back and revel in how smart you are that you don't fall for this nonsense. I'm not saying I ADVOCATE massive consumption, or that people use "things" to feel better about themselves.

a) We all have been "falling for this nonsense".
b) By advocating CAPITALism, you ARE advocating massive consumption and the use of "things" to feel 'better'.

[dcXhc]

A recent survey issued by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and the American Enterprise Institute reveals that the overwhelming majority of college professors are registered Democrats, and that they teach in disciplines where politics matters the most. It has prompted considerable comment.

It found that:


-More that 90 percent of professors who work in the arts and sciences departments at leading colleges and universities belong to either Democrat, Green or Working Class parties -- with very few registered as either Republican or Libertarian.

-Among history professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder, only one out of 29 was a registered Republican -- and among 19 political science professors only two Republicans could be found.

-At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliation was identified, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans.

-At Brown University, 54 professors whose political affiliations were recorded in primary registrations last year were Democrats, compared with three Republicans.

-Comments on the imbalance range from "worrisome" to "a national outrage." Said one critic, "Faculties that won't brook intellectual dissent in their own ranks feel more comfortable indoctrinating students than educating them..."

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17443/article_detail.asp

http://www.taemag.com/docLib/20030716_018KZandGraphs.pdf

[lawdog]

Boy I really should try to take a lesson from the "I don't understand it" thread. I guess I'm just hardheaded. However...

Poppycock. Putting aside for a moment the fact that one's party affiliation may or may not be any indication of how one goes about one's job of teaching, this survey is both small and incomplete, and the conclusions drawn from it are not supported by what data there is.

First of all, in the introduction to their data, they state "Lest critics accuse us of cherry-picking only fringed disciplines, we have stuck mostly to major, uncontroversial, and socially significant fields of study. And we have carefully arrayed the data by department." Mmm-hmm. What they can still be accused of, though, is cherry picking particular schools, and also of cherry picking selected data within schools (e.g. some schools only have a couple departments listed, others have up to 8). While thge data presented are anecdoteally interesting, I wouldn't call it statistically meaningful or significant. That's not to say that I don't believe more college professors are liberal than conservative (or, to use their terminology, more are likely "left" than "right.") However, based on my own personal, anecdotal evidence (4 years at a small liberal arts school, three at a big university), I don't think the numbers are anywhere near as skewed as the American Enterprise would have you believe.

What I really have a problem with is the conclusion they draw from that: "In truth, colleges are now hostile environments for economic and cultural conservatives. Only a comparatively narrow spectrum of views is really welcome on campus. If you stray from the liberal consensus you will soon find yourself without allies, without tenure, and eventually without a position." I think this is the conclusion the author was wanting to draw all along.

There is nothing in the meager numbers presented to indicate that conservatives are truly discriminated against or encounter a hostile environment in academia. I probably could only tell you the party affiliation of a handful of my colleagues, and while political views may be more open in academia, to suggest that suggest that a college campus is hostile to conservatives from these data goes too far. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that highly educated people tend to be more "left" politically, and that would be just as valid a conclusion (i.e. not terribly valid at all).

One possible, more sensible explanation might be that people who are politically "left" are more likely to pursue careers in academia. I'll bet if you searched voter registries in the same towns for tax lawyers, police, military officials, or clergy, you'd find the numbers skewed in the opposite direction. The pressing question, though, is "Does it matter?" Are students really being indoctrinated into the evils of liberal thought, or is that merely urban legend (like the myth of the liberal media)?

Although conservative students are probably in the minority at many college campuses, are they necessarily in a hostile environment?

If a conservative professor or student's views are challenged on an honest intellectual level by another professor or student, how does that constitute hostility? Isn't having one's opinions engaged in honest debate and being forced to back them up the crux of learning to think critically?

Is this only happening to conservative students? Are students who wear Birkenstocks and are members of the College Democrats being mollycoddled while their conservative counterparts are browbeaten? None of that has been my experience. If anything, one of the lynchpins of the "liberal" mindset seems to be an openness to other views and perspectives.

Anyway, I'm ranting and rambling. Just wanted to point out that I think the AE's take on this is unnecessarily alarmist, and I don't buy it.

-liberaldog

P.S. I wonder if Docta--a lefty and a college professor--will weigh in on this article? That's right, dude, I'm calling you out! :P

[RichmondVA]

I think you have to throw out all the private school data. First off, I don't think it's any big secret that the Ivy league schools are among the more liberal of colleges (plenty of prominent conservatives have graduated from them, however).

More importantly, those are private schools. They can be biased however they want. The fact that they are liberal but still well-respected and highly in demand is due to market forces. Do you really want the government involved in this? If so, there are probably 200 private colleges and universities with a strong correlation between faculty and student body and religion affiliation. And are you then going to have a problem that most CEO's and industry leaders are conservative? The Ivies win playing the game AEI's way. Suck it up and deal.

The data on the public schools I think might be a cause for legitimate concern. Like Lawdog, I think that it's mostly self-selection. Medical, law and business programs tend to run conservative but those are professional degrees. The vast majority of phd students I know are liberal. I don't think that deans and professors explicitly ask applicants for their political affiliation. But I do think that most of them are very liberal and between their unconscious biases and the general environment, academia is not friendly to conservatives. I feel like public universities have a greater obligation to create a diverse learning environment, and this is perhaps an area where they aren't doing so.

You know, there aren't very many minority faculty either. I don't see AEI calling that an outrage though.

[DudeMan]

I don't know if the numbers are completely accurate, but my gut and experience tells me they're pretty close.

And I think that for the most part, undergrad students these days tend to be overall more conservative (or, less left-wing) than the entrenched liberals who teach them. I think that most students sort of put their professors' politcal discussions through a filter, knowing that they're getting a tilt.

This all applies to 'soft' fields of study. For 'harder' disciplines like mathematics, physics, computer science, etc., the professors tend to be apolitical for the most part, or at least politics plays a minimal role.

There was a great article by David Brooks in this month's Atlantic, and unfortunately when I went to their website to link it here, it wasn't posted yet. But, the basic jist of his article was that for all talks of diversity, we arrange our lives such that we are around people who are pretty much like us, whether it be by race, politics, socio-economic class, etc.

And yes, whether it it on purpose or no, in areas like economics, political science, law school, the english dept., etc., it is harder for free-marketers and/or social conservatives to make their way. Speaking as one who came very close to pursuing a career in the academic world and hence has seen it up close and personal, I can attest to that.

So Law Dog, I don't disagree with everything you are saying. But, I think that you are discounting the degree to which a prevailing (and typically, liberal) orthodoxy among the professoriate in any given university, school or department, has an impact upon those who don't toe the line.

[Docta]

Originally posted by lawdog


P.S. I wonder if Docta--a lefty and a college professor--will weigh in on this article? That's right, dude, I'm calling you out! :P

moi? well ya, i pretty much agree with everything you said brutha. we've hashed out alot of this here before i think. if dude's assessment is correct that the student body is more conservative leaning nowadays, which i am not sold on, then who really cares how the professoriate thinks anyhow? even dude will say that we have the best higher education institutions in the world, so again why is this an issue? selfishly, i am of the opinion that maybe our universities are so good because of the "liberal" faculty, but again that is irrelavant here.

other good points here that the majority of business/engineering profs/etcetera lean more towards the right.

i also think perhaps the right winged person is more money motivated which is why we don't see as many of them in the faculty, a relatively meager incomed profession.

good faculty welcome and encourage all opinions, period, whether it's among their peers or their students. don't get pissed however if we ask you to explain or backup your assumptions, nor should you get pissed when we express an opposing viewpoint. playing devils advocate, whether it is a liberal or conservative side of the issue, is a tactic employed by faculty to force students to dig deeper into their opinions on issues. most of the griping comes when the student does not do his or her work then blames the professor (or his/her parents do) for anything less than an A. but then we are talking about grade inflation which is another issue completely.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

For 'harder' disciplines like mathematics, physics, computer science, etc., the professors tend to be apolitical for the most part, or at least politics plays a minimal role.


also agreed, and this describes my situation. while i am a bleeding heart, i would bet $100 that none of my students have any idea about my political leanings. not that i am against bringing up "real" issues in the classroom, but the topics just do not come up in a computer networking course beyond screaming the evils of microsoft as i teach how to impliment their products, hehe.

now sovrana, she's one of those left wing pushers of communism in academia. (insert click and clack art history joke here) 8-)

[Duemellon]

That's right, dude, I'm calling you out! :P Dude, ur ass is SOOOOO sued. You might as well cut the f'in check now.

Liberals make better teachers. Those in a position of nurishing and encouraging exploration and independent thought MUST allow themselves to let their students be free.

Rush Limbaugh would flunk 66% the class for dissention.

Moore would flunk 50% of his class for "not understanding the point".ie: dissention

Also, the whole $ thing.

It's easier for a liberal to raise a conservative than a conservative to raise a liberal.

and LD? I'll bet you think I'm kidding? don't u? God, that's legal-lay-up for me.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by Duemellon
[color=black]ie: dissention[/ciolor]


Well, at least I did it right! :p

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Duemellon
..ur...
...f'in....
.....nurishing.....
....dissention....
....dissention.....
...ciolor....
and....
...u?



I'm guessing you were taught by a liberal who encouraged and nourished exploration of creative and independent spelling and capitalization?

[Duemellon]

Well, at least I did it right! huh? whatcha talkin a bout?

uh, Dx? Only if u were readin it & u got to a point where u were like: "WTF was THAT word? I can't even understand it b/c this word was so botched!" is when i get concerned.

But thnx for payin attention, i feel cared for.

[dcXhc]

ur wlcm

[RichmondVA]

I've had as many conservative professors as liberal professors.

There've been good and bad professors in both political camps, but overall I've noticed no difference in terms of professionalism, interest in students, and quality of teaching.

I have also gone on assessment visits to some pretty out-there right wing universities. Even in those institutions, I thought the professors did a remarkable job of expanding awareness and putting forth both sides of the issues. It wasn't exactly down-the-middle (no way it could be), but it was way closer than one would think-- and close enough that it made the students distinctly uncomfortable.

You know, if BigSugar or Bronzetree had just made the same blanket comments you just did, you'd be all over them calling bigots.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by Docta

now sovrana, she's one of those left wing pushers of communism in academia. (insert click and clack art history joke here) 8-) [/B]

:D

[BigSugar]

one of my favorite law professors was a raging left wing radical....way, way out there dude from Harvard....great guy....used to go drinking with us and discuss constitutional law all night.....he actually killed himself a year or so after i left law school....really great mind, but just couldn't wrap it around the real world so much....most of my history professors at college were pretty left wing too come to think of it....gotta tell you, as long as they graded fair, i could give a rats ass what political leanings my professors had....i'd actually rather have a professor come from a diff. angle than me and give me a challenge....most of the people in my classes were able to separate the "wheat from the chafe" in the teachings anyway, regardless of the leanings of the teacher....

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
It's easier for a liberal to raise a conservative than a conservative to raise a liberal

wrong.

ie: me

I was actually pretty politically conservative growing up per my parents: then Reagan.

'nuff said.

If life experience throws a curveball to what you've been taught/told by influencing adults around you it's a crap shoot.

If life experience confirms what you've been told/taught by influencing adults around you then one usually stays with that teaching.

I think this applies regardless of right or left political upbringing. People usually only 'know' (meaning internalize or 'own') what they experience.

[Duemellon]

eh, I consider consv v. lib to be more of a life-choice than a political affiliation.

Someone who thinks consv ALL THE TIME and someone who think LIB all the time.

Fine, I'll concede my point if you want to consider it strictly a political affiliation.

[Ta2]

I am not sure what makes somebody a liberal, or a conservative. And like lots of you I enjoy debating my opinions with someone on the other side when they are educated on their opinions. But being the lone liberal where I work it gets hard sometimes. And what I hate is when the people you are discussing current events with get their only information from good old Rush. When in this situation it is pretty hopeless, how can one dispute the words of god?

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
eh, I consider consv v. lib to be more of a life-choice than a political affiliation.

Someone who thinks consv ALL THE TIME and someone who think LIB all the time.

Fine, I'll concede my point if you want to consider it strictly a political affiliation.

I dont consider it strictly a political affiliation but only having two choices (right or left) for a 'life-choice' is a bit limiting. And I don't know of anyone who thinks one way or the other all the time.....

Phreon and I recently had this discussion; was very interesting to see that our differences stem from a definitional standpoint. We found that we define certain basic concepts completely differently.....


There is no left; there is no right; there is only corporate.

[classicgrrl]

really? cool I didnt know that.

I take politics too personally so I try to stay away from debates. I am poor at debating anyway. And even more poor at defending myself.

I just ask questions.

[floats in space]

Originally posted by classicgrrl
I take politics too personally so I try to stay away from debates. I am poor at debating anyway. And even more poor at defending myself.

Don't believe her. She's a hustler (baby). She told me the same thing when we played pool and poker and now, now I owe her $13,981.34.

Anyone want to buy a kidney?

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by floats in space


Don't believe her. She's a hustler (baby). She told me the same thing when we played pool and poker and now, now I owe her $13,981.34.

Anyone want to buy a kidney?

:D

thats the first time I have laughed all day!

[chicodaman]

i think the notion of college making someone liberal is b.s. it just happens to be a place where many like-minded, young, rebellious people mingle (often times with there brain in an altered state) and have a chance to share their opinions. this tends to lead to (gasp) conformity (gasp) in thinking.
i also think that age and personal experience lead to the choice. if you feel wronged by "the man" at some point, you probably will be influenced by that. plus, when your young you still feel as though you can take on the world and change it for the better (in a very grandiose way).
the biggest influence for me is (besides gary hart, who screwed up his chance), i think the liberals are usually the bigger dolts of all the candidates. i personally would have been skerred if gore would have won over bush. gore is a mighty good salesman though.

[solomon]

clergy

Depends. I was raised catholic and I can tell you that american catholicism is certainly not right wing in my experience. They by and large see it as "right" for the government to care for the people, even if it is through extortion.

But, the basic jist of his article was that for all talks of diversity, we arrange our lives such that we are around people who are pretty much like us, whether it be by race, politics, socio-economic class, etc.

That's exactly right and I've said it in more than one post here. People naturally segregate themselves and attempts to forcibly create "diversity" by tossing people together who do not wish to be together only creates problems.

i think the notion of college making someone liberal is b.s.

I don't think it's total b.s. A lot of my friends first started getting interested in current events and politics around the end of high school/beginning of college. So who do they ask questions to? Their teachers during class discussions. And what kind of answers does this intellectual authority give, who most likely has been raised on the government teet? left leaning answers that things would be so EASY to fix if people (read conservatives/republicans/rich) would just stop being so dern GREEDY and let the government handle it etc etc.

Some of my friends were really completely ignorant of the real fundamentals of points of view like mine, despite four years of college, and some were even poli sci majors.

sol

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by solomon
People naturally segregate themselves and attempts to forcibly create "diversity" by tossing people together who do not wish to be together only creates problems.

Nation of Islam and the American Nazi Party are in complete agreement there.

I tend to take the view that we live in a society that seperates us from each other. Most of the 'differences' that seperate us are abstract and absurd - race, sexual preference, etc. There are some differences that are based on socioeconomic realities - class. Supporting working class unity and working class autonomy is obviously radically different than supporting racial unity...

yours in class struggle,
yoshomon

[vinegurl]

how many labels can one person wear?

[Phreon]

Conservative OR Liberal, I think many people gravitate towards one or the other because they're too damn lazy to do anything but take what other people tell them as gospel. Aren't critical thinking skills taught anymore? Why don't people ever question what they're told? Especially in our overmarketed society where the news pushes ratings, not objectivity? Geraldo Rivera said it, so it MUST be true!

Besides, you can't draw the automatic Liberal=Democrat, Conservative=Republican conclusion anymore; the lines are so blurry, I think I'm drunk!


Phreon

[Duemellon]

how many labels can one person wear? enough to cover themselves up from the "shame" of being naked.

[yoshomon]

Liberals and conservatives both defend the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie - the dictatorship of the spectacle. From a working class perspective, it really doesn't matter which one is elected.

There is always a revolutionary alternative - an alternative that is empowering and refuses to merely be led by 'representatives' that only represent the ruling class.

a funny article bout' liberals: www.geocities.com/yoshomon/dealingliberals.html

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
enough to cover themselves up from the "shame" of being naked.

oh geez another sig...now what?
OR
finally a reply to say to the girl who refuses to wear anything but brands....:D

[Duemellon]

u do realize ur sig is taking up more space than ur posts...

[classicgrrl]

only in current events...:p

http://msg.woxy.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8816&pagenumber=2

[vinegurl]

Originally posted by Duemellon
enough to cover themselves up from the "shame" of being naked.

everyone has their "shame" I suppose ;)

[postfeminist]

Phreon said Conservative OR Liberal, I think many people gravitate towards one or the other because they're too damn lazy to do anything but take what other people tell them as gospel.

WORD UP!

I've described myself as a progressive or a lefty nearly 100 times or maybe more on these boards, and I really do agree w/ Phreon on this one... I am the only child of two relatively conservative folks (mom is middle of the road on most things, but is very PRO-LIFE and dad is nearly a libertarian...small gov't, pro choice, pro gun) but i turned out to be a raging liberal or a thoughtful progressive, you choose. :) The thing about it is that I have searched out the logic behind why i think what i think and believe what i believe-- i can't let feelings dictate my political feelings, like many liberals are perceived to do.

I believe in a woman's right to reproductive freedom because it's logical to me that the gov't can't tell me & other women what to do w/ our own bodies. I see it as illogical for GWB to tell me I have to have a baby if I don't want to. I believe in a citizen's right to be armed with a gun if s/he so chooses, as long as said citizen is trained how to properly carry, operate, clean, and store said firearm. And as long as they don't have a rap sheet or a mental health record a mile long--because it is illogical to give criminals and the medically insane guns. (I know, I know, if they want them bad enough, they'll get them...but that's not my point.) I believe in a worker's right to organize a union if they should so be inclined because it is logical to want to protect one's income and benefits, etc.... i could go on all night. I don't believe that liberals are created on college campuses anymore than conservatives are created on college campuses... one could possibly argue that campus life might create more conservatives than liberals-- many of the leftest-leaning folks i know are such because they did not go to college, dropped out, or got out into the world and found that their needs and interests are not adequately addressed or provided for-- working a minimum wage job after a college degree, or finding yourself without legal rights as a gay or lesbian person, or without health insurance, etc...ad infinitum tends to make a person a lefty much faster than hanging around the campus green talking shit about the campus crusade for christ or nuking gay whales or whatever.

yeah, i had a rough day...so i'm a little wound up. i'll go now. :)

*pf

[trailerspamcook]

Originally posted by Ta2
I am not sure what makes somebody a liberal, or a conservative. And like lots of you I enjoy debating my opinions with someone on the other side when they are educated on their opinions. But being the lone liberal where I work it gets hard sometimes. And what I hate is when the people you are discussing current events with get their only information from good old Rush. When in this situation it is pretty hopeless, how can one dispute the words of god?

Do what I do....quote the bible back to them. Or agree with them wholeheartedly, a little too wholeheartedly..."They ought to take all of their kids away and round them up and shoot them." I also like to trip them up on the "What would Jesus do?" bullshit....I mean, did he go around putting criminals in the electric chair or passing judgement on people? (Well, who really knows, right)? Of course there is always the option of just putting a ceramic goats head with black candles on your desk, along with ruinic symbols, and being the good Christians they are, they will just scratch their heads and leave you the fuck alone.

[solomon]

I believe in a worker's right to organize a union if they should so be inclined because it is logical to want to protect one's income and benefits, etc

Nothing wrong with that. I'm for the right to have a union as long as they remain non-violent. And I think they are ultimately detrimental to workers.

found that their needs and interests are not adequately addressed or provided for

But have you really dug into WHY that might be? Or do you just assume that government involvement is the answer and not the cause?

ad infinitum tends to make a person a lefty

I agree. It's a natural reaction, but an incorrect one in my opinion. People naturally see the government, they make promises, and people believe them and...goddamn it they just want their health insurance SOMEHOW. They don't actually look to see WHY the health industry is so fucked up, or WHY the economy sucks so bad.

sol

[RichmondVA]

Let me fix up a few minor mistakes you made there. :D

Originally posted by solomon
I agree. It's a natural reaction, but an incorrect one in my opinion. People naturally see the government, they take taxes, and people believe them and...goddamn it they just want their money SOMEHOW. They don't actually care WHY the health industry is so fucked up, or WHY the economy sucks so bad.

[solomon]

Thanks. I guess I should proofread things a little more. :)

[almaniac27]

I'm a liberal and I was created by listening to 1530 WCKY, our local Air America affilliate. After I listened for a while, I took several political tests and the results came up that I was a Centrist, but a liberal Centrist.

I am ashamed to admit, I used to be a conservative. I used to be all "rah rah Bush", "rah rah Rush Limbaugh", but what turned me over to the good side was the Terri Schiavo controversy. "Look! She's smiling!" Give me a break.

[Shlep]

They seem to blame the university/faculty for this evolution of my political philosophies. This is something that is heralded by conservatives in this country, that a "liberal bias" is seen in our colleges trying to convert our nice young republicans into bleeding hearts.

But how does this happen? It's not as if universities offer liberalism 101. If someone has conservative leanings, even if a Professor is a liberal, the conservative wouldn't just take an opinion as their own because they are told to would they?

My theory is that college teaches us to think more critically. To dig deeper into the meaning of things, why things happen in this world. College forces us to ask the question "why?"

This emersion into deeper thought and understanding, in my opinion, is what creates a more left wing individual, not some liberal pushers in the university itself.

Often as folks get older however, this becomes difficult to do. It is much easier not to dig into issues for real understanding but to just take at face value what we are told on the television. Add to that the fact that selfishly the conservative stand helps the older, financially stable person, and there is a group of older individuals voting republican. As boomers reach this age it may give another reason for our country becoming more conservative of late. Sorry off topic there for a moment.

But what do you think?

I think that this thesis shows one of the primary, underlying conceits of strident liberalism: that liberalism is the result of becoming educated, of making critical distinctions about issues, and digging deeper as opposed to conservatives who go through life swallowing what they're told. The idea that someone could be educated *AND* conservative at the same time is a contradiction to many liberals.

If anything, liberalism has advanced the art of sound-bites, of summing up and defending positions with tidy little slogans that fit well on to protest placards and bumper stickers.

I attended college straight out of the Marine Corps, a decidedly conservative organization, and started when political correctness was the new fad sweeping the country, particularly at colleges such as my undergrad alma mater (George Mason University) which was traditionally a liberal arts institution. Sure, I had some of my ideas about the world changed, but in many ways college reinforced my conservatism, perhaps because I got a chance to see liberals being the exact same sort of intolerant, smug idealogues that conservatives can be in situations where they hold the majority opinion. Contrary to the liberal mantra of "tolerance" and "diversity," die-hard liberals are no more in the mood to countenance opposing viewpoints than die-hard conservatives, and mostly enjoy celebrating diversity that fits in with their own worldview.

A zealot is a zealot. They think they know better, and want to make you understand, even force you, for your own good. The only difference between George Bush and Hillary Clinton is what they get upset about.

Oddly enough, I've become what more people would call "liberal" in my views about many things (gay rights, drug legalization being two items) as I;ve gotten older, though even more curiously because I've become more conservative. Conservatism is supposed to be about leaving people the hell alone to do what they wish and not spending my money to make things right, fair, or just...something that the current crop of so-called conservatives on Capitol Hill seem to have forgotten. Hence they've largely lost my allegience, and my vote.

[the happy prole]

If anything, liberalism has advanced the art of sound-bites, of summing up and defending positions with tidy little slogans that fit well on to protest placards and bumper stickers.

That's what liberals say about Limbaugh and the like. There's no shortage of clever quips at the expense of substance on either side of the aisle.

What it really boils down to is the vast majority of the American public wants something for nothing. Conservatives pretend things are fair when they really aren't. Liberals pretend they want to make things fair when they really don't.

[Docta]

damn ppl, this thread is two years old!!!! please do not take anything i said that long ago with any seriousness, or today for that matter perhaps.........

[Semiapies]

Hey, it's still a fun topic.

I suppose you have to say "what kind of liberal"?

The believer in individual, human rights and just government existing only to protect those rights with the consent of the governed? That is to some extent, most people in American politics - "convervative" and "liberal" alike - and the very philosophy movements like socialism, fascism, and communism were formed in explicit opposition to. (And if anyone has a problem with that assertion, look into the history of those movements and you'll find just how much their intellectual founders hated ideas like individual rights and having to answer to the little people.)

I've been into that since I was old enough to understand the idea.

But, if we mean modern American centrist-leftism, as basically represented by the Democratic Party, that's a different story.

I considered myself a liberal for a long time - from before high school to after I left college. I mostly cared about civil liberties, and bought into the idea that the liberals and only the liberals really cared about freedom and our constitutional rights. Of course, I was always bugged by most liberals refusing to acknowledge that gun ownership was a constitutionally-guaranteed, individual right, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Of course, as I got older and learned more, I realized that there weren't two clean-cut, monolithic groups known as the Liberals and the Conservatives. I learned that they were two coalitions of roughly-compatible groups who fought their "fellow travelers" sometimes more nastily than they did their "opponents". So, I started to acknowledge that most liberals really didn't care remotely as much about civil liberties as I did (after, admittedly, a couple years of liberals trying to explain this to me). I also realized to my shock that a lot of conservatives were just as repulsed by the like of Pat Buchanan as I was.

But how I got out of liberalism is probably another thread.

[markalot]

Go Libertarians!

A liberal is how one interprets the constitution. Today liberal means something completely different. I'm not able to pin down exactly where liberal ends and progressive begins, but the attitude that a liberal is a liberal because he/she is smarter (more educated) is THE nail in the political coffin of modern liberalism. People are just sick and tired of hearing about how dumb they are because they don't agree with 'a liberal'.

It reminds me of an argument I had when I used to volunteer for a local conservancy. This person thought it was a good idea to get in the face of the people who did not agree and basicly shout at them to get her point across.

The way I saw it, and still see it, is you have 3 types of people you're sending a message to.

1. someone who agrees with you
2. someone on the fence
3. someone who disagrees with you

Your target needs to be 2, but what does yelling and telling someone who disagrees that they are stupid do?

Pretty much sums up politics today. And yes, in my biased opinion the liberals make this mistake much more than conservatives do.

[Orville Wrong]

Liberals or unhinged leftists? Christopher Hitchens or Michael Moore?

Moore (not actually a liberal) was created by mixing a grade schooler's understanding of politics and socio-economics with about 3.5 million Big Macs.

Hitchens (actual liberal) read a lot books.

[Orville Wrong]

Go Libertarians!

A liberal is how one interprets the constitution. Today liberal means something completely different. I'm not able to pin down exactly where liberal ends and progressive begins, but the attitude that a liberal is a liberal because he/she is smarter (more educated) is THE nail in the political coffin of modern liberalism. People are just sick and tired of hearing about how dumb they are because they don't agree with 'a liberal'.

It reminds me of an argument I had when I used to volunteer for a local conservancy. This person thought it was a good idea to get in the face of the people who did not agree and basicly shout at them to get her point across.

The way I saw it, and still see it, is you have 3 types of people you're sending a message to.

1. someone who agrees with you
2. someone on the fence
3. someone who disagrees with you

Your target needs to be 2, but what does yelling and telling someone who disagrees that they are stupid do?

Pretty much sums up politics today. And yes, in my biased opinion the liberals make this mistake much more than conservatives do.
Dead on.

I've been called "stupid" on these boards for non-progressive thought by people who short out their keyboards a couple times a day with drool. It is to laugh.

[the happy prole]

hehehe. I'm getting lectured by *libertarians* about having a cocky attitude?

Your whole friggin' philosophy is predicated on the fact that you're smarter and better than anyone else and you can prove it. :p

[markalot]

hehehe. I'm getting lectured by *libertarians* about having a cocky attitude?

Your whole friggin' philosophy is predicated on the fact that you're smarter and better than anyone else and you can prove it. :p

Haha, you know I'm right cause you're smart.

[townee]

the reason why everything is so polarized in the US right now is because there are only two strong partys to choose from. you need a third or fourth party to give a home for your moderate liberals or your progressive conservatives. in canada we have five strong parties which makes for interesting competition and less polarized politics. time for......!

CANADIAN POLITICS 101... we have:

1. the new democrat party: the NDP is a hardcore leftwing party. they push for social programs and everything on the leftwing agenda you could possibly think of. the ndp is fiscally progressive and socially progressive. they get alot of support from workers unions and socialists.

2. the liberal party: a party for moderates generally leaning more toward the left, and several left wing voters that disagree with the NDP. the liberal party is fiscally conservative but socially progressive. they have alot of support from big buissness.

3. the conservative party: a party for conservatives all around. the party mimics much of bush's agenda..pro-nuclear armamament of space, pro-war in iraq, anti same sex marriage, support private healthcare and against pensions/social programs etc. they have alot of backing in rural constituencies and from religious zealots. the party is fiscally conservative and socially conservative. which would make for a scary canada if they were ever elected.

4. le bloc quebecois: the bloc is the seperatist party from quebec. they usually only get elected in quebec and push a pro-francophone agenda. the bloc will never gain power but they may one day gain independance for the province of quebec. they are very leftwing socially and fiscally, but they are ususally very synical to any anglophone party regardless of their platform.

5. the green party: i am a card holding member of this party. they are fiscally conservative, socially progressive and environmentally conservative. although they are on the fringe, they are up and coming. they push for a more grassroots democracy and a more green way of thinking. they get alot of support from environmentalists, and a large chunk of the youth.

all of these partys except the green party hold seats in parliament.

[tempo]

the reason why everything is so polarized in the US right now is because there are only two strong partys to choose from. you need a third or fourth party to give a home for your moderate liberals or your progressive conservatives.

Ahh, would that it were.

A parliamentary system is a little more friendly to multiple parties than the U.S. system is. For better or for worse, all of our national elections are winner-take-all affairs (except president, which is still winner-take all in the Electoral College). Voters cast ballots for individuals, not party slates, and a candidate with 49.99% of the vote gets bupkis.

In that kind of a system, third parties can be hardly ever hope to be more than spoilers.

[wombat18]

... what does yelling and telling someone who disagrees that they are stupid do?

Pretty much sums up politics today. And yes, in my biased opinion the liberals make this mistake much more than conservatives do.

Which, of course, would explain the sudden popularity of Fox News, right ? If more liberals would actually stand for something and defend it smartly, we might have a dialogue in this country.

And, if you want to see multi-party democracies in action, then the Italian system in the 90's was pretty informative. Remind me, how many governments do you want in any single year ?

[seafoamgreen]

I though Liberalism was what happened when socialists just stopped giving a shit. :p

[Semiapies]

hehehe. I'm getting lectured by *libertarians* about having a cocky attitude?

Your whole friggin' philosophy is predicated on the fact that you're smarter and better than anyone else and you can prove it. :pThat's news to me. I always thought about it as predicated on the idea that the people in power are not smarter and better than everyone else, so we shouldn't hand over nearly so much power to them.

[Money]

If a conservative is a liberal that got mugged, then maybe a liberal is a conservative who lost their job.

[Money]

I though Liberalism was what happened when socialists just stopped giving a shit. :p

LOL

Or inherited a lot of money.

[Orville Wrong]

all of these partys except the green party hold seats in parliament.
I have two uncles who are FLQ. You forgot them.

One is in prison, blew up a bank.

[akip]

LOL

Or inherited a lot of money.

actually, a lot of trustafarians stay socialist and move to santa fe.

liberals are mainly in the cities, unless those cities are dallas, ft worth and houston.

[Orville Wrong]

actually, a lot of trustafarians stay socialist and move to santa fe.

liberals are mainly in the cities, unless those cities are dallas, ft worth and houston.
Liberals, as a rule, are richer than conservatives. This is so obvious that it surprises me that the conservative fat cat myth persists.

[the_birds]

Just for guidance...I am a huge liberal and progressive.

But come on, be serious OW, you can't actually say you can choose Christopher Hitchens over Michael Moore. You can say both of them are full of shit, or you can just be another lemming. Neither of them can argue a point worth a damn, not to mention anything based on anything that resembles factual accuracy. Most conservative authors are ludicrous. You have to retreat back to the pillars of Conservative thought, people like George Will and Ronald Reagan. Simply because so many of today Conservatives are idiotic pontificators who spout crap like a sprinkler system at Football stadium. Its an ethically bankrupt race to see which Conservative talking head can make the more outrageously accusation about liberals, so they can get their kudos from the talking heads on Fox News and a chance to beg for their own TV show.

Saying that, Michael Moore did essentially the same thing in Fahrenheit 9/11, so as a liberal I am not so excited about that. I like the methods, but its simply not strong enough factually. I would like nothing better than for a liberal to truly assemble a work, that will disembowel the Conservative hypocrisy.

[benway]

Liberals, as a rule, are richer than conservatives. This is so obvious that it surprises me that the conservative fat cat myth persists.
The "myth" comes from the enormous funding the conservatives get from fat cat corporations. They're richer and much better organized at getting their message out. They've got the "Think tank" down to a fine science, whereas the dems are floundering around trying to find their own asses.

[akip]

Liberals, as a rule, are richer than conservatives. This is so obvious that it surprises me that the conservative fat cat myth persists.

ha. fighting with mr wrong on ce/p again.

not really in a fighting mood this week, but i'll pull rank and say that, as one who is frequently invited to eat at the table of the very rich, they are both liberal and conservative---though i'm probably around more liberal rich than average, since they populate the art patron/collector crowd more heavily than, say, members of the nra.

it depends. i know a liberal bank president, but i also know plenty of conservatives who sit on boards of cultural and philanthropic organizations. the am radio mogul (inherited money, but also a very successful businessman) is a bush conservative who is socially liberal. then there's the particularly fervent, all-the-way conservative friend who was supposed to have inherited money, but then got cut out of the will. most of the successful small businessmen i'm acquainted with, inlcuding my brother, are conservative. but the guy who made a fortune creating a science kit for schools is liberal. at least some ivy league educated, high-earning businessmen voted for bush holding their noses---they aren't so sure he's smart enough to lead in foreign affairs, but his anti-regulatory, anti-tax agenda is exactly what they're after. they consider his social conservative side to be just necessary "pandering" to get elected, and not relevant to their concerns.

i've gotta dig for that little test-your-politics site that somebody, i think markalot, posted. according to that, i was classic liberal. but the most interesting part was the demographics.

[the happy prole]

Libertarians and liberals are both rich.

I think this is the report that markalot once posted:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

"Enterprisers"- Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide).

Liberals- Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

[akip]

Libertarians and liberals are both rich.


what would be even more interesting to know is the political breakdown of americans in the wealthiest tax bracket.

[akip]

there was a great article in the chronicle of higher education---"the triumph and collapse of liberalism" by john lukacs. unfortunately, you have to have a subscription to the chronicle to access the archive.

i have a copy of it and i'll try to get around to re-reading it so i can post the gist of it. in meantime, here's a quote (any typos are mine, not theirs):

"during the 19th century, liberalism, by and large, meant political and economic individualism, an emphasis on liberty even more than equality, a reduction and limitation of the powers of government. from the beginning of the 20th century, liberals, by and large, accepted and advocated the spread of equality, meaning more and more legislation and government bureaucracy to guarantee the welfare of entire populations. that kind of administrative intervention, with its occasional legislative and bureaucratic excesses, turned millions of americans against 'government' (although they were often the same americans who were enthusiastic about the political and military powers of government)."



i don't suppose anybody around here's got a subscription.

[Buzzstein]

Well there's a lot of bullshit to walk through when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. They are basically corporates that talk like "liberals" or "conservatives." I suppose I would call myself liberal, but I'm really not for the Democrats. I'm not for either dictatorsh.. um...I mean party.

[jcarwash31]

4. le bloc quebecois: the bloc is the seperatist party from quebec. they usually only get elected in quebec and push a pro-francophone agenda. the bloc will never gain power but they may one day gain independance for the province of quebec. they are very leftwing socially and fiscally, but they are ususally very synical to any anglophone party regardless of their platform.

Hehehehe.......Bloc Party.

[Shlep]

Your whole friggin' philosophy is predicated on the fact that you're smarter and better than anyone else and you can prove it. :p

Actually, the LIbertarian philosophy is that by and large, I know what's better for than you do, and you know what's better for you that I do, and we both know what's better for us than the government, and if we're wrong, at least individual screw-ups are quicker and cheaper to correct than massive, organized, well-funded government screw-ups.

[the happy prole]

I like paying taxes to the government and receiving certain services in return. So do most Americans.

[jcarwash31]

I like paying taxes to the government and receiving certain services in return. So do most Americans.
I get the feeling that alot of people forget that the taxes they pay are used for services they receive. I would have liked to have paid another 10 cents a gallon gas tax to pay for metro transit and I really want to pay another .15% to the sales tax to pay for a Twins' stadium.

[aqualou]

can you imagine paying for private trash removal, fire and police service, road and traffic repair, sewer maintainance . . . talk about a bad 1st of the month. ;)

[purple_octopus]

can you imagine paying for private trash removal, fire and police service, road and traffic repair, sewer maintainance . . . talk about a bad 1st of the month. ;)
I have actually had to pay for private trash removal -- as does most everyone in Knox county. It's not bad, really.

I also don't know a single Libertarian that would argue that we don't need a minimal dose of government to take care of these things that the private sector would not likely find profitable (and therefore, not be inclined to do). I believe you're thinking of anarchists.

[jcarwash31]

There was someone who wrote into the Star Tribune a couple months ago who thought that the income tax was unconstitutional.

[tempo]

Liberals, as a rule, are richer than conservatives. This is so obvious that it surprises me that the conservative fat cat myth persists.

Liberals tend to be richer? Hmmm... I'm skeptical of this claim, but since liberals tend to live in urban areas (with higher costs of living) I suppose it's possible. Anybody know of a good repository for demographic data on this topic?

Here's more specific claim to consider: There are many liberals (a few of whom are rich/well-off) and there are many conservatives (a few of whom are rich/well-off). Naturally the rich/well-off form a minority of people overall. Now, I'd be willing to bet that a sizable majority of the rich/well-off vote Republican. And by extension, I'd be willing to bet that the VAST MAJORITY of wealth in this country is controlled by people who vote Republican.

[Shlep]

I like paying taxes to the government and receiving certain services in return. So do most Americans.

can you imagine paying for private trash removal, fire and police service, road and traffic repair, sewer maintainance . . . talk about a bad 1st of the month. ;)

I'm guessing (correct me if I am wrong) that both of you are alluding towards the commonly held misconception that Libertarians are in favor of completely dismantling the government and making every facet of life a privately-funded affair. This is not the case; indeed, it wouldn't make much sense to field candidates for high political office if it were so, would it? ;)

Libertarians believe in limiting the scope and role of government to those things that individuals cannot reasonably do for themselves-- and that would include paving the roads, maintaining an army, reparing public sanitation, and the like.

[markalot]

I'm guessing (correct me if I am wrong) that both of you are alluding towards the commonly held misconception that Libertarians are in favor of completely dismantling the government and making every facet of life a privately-funded affair. This is not the case; indeed, it wouldn't make much sense to field candidates for high political office if it were so, would it? ;)

Libertarians believe in limiting the scope and role of government to those things that individuals cannot reasonably do for themselves-- and that would include paving the roads, maintaining an army, reparing public sanitation, and the like.

Funny how liberals seem to have trouble with this concept, even though they are more highly edumacated. They also mention things that LOCAL governments do well, such as garbage collection and utilites. The really big numbers, the federal programs that MOST of our tax money goes too, are just too hard to think about.

Can you imagine if the feds were in charge of garbage collection!

[the happy prole]

I know at least three Libertarians that go nuts at the thought of their taxes going to roads they don't use. At best, they are willing to accept the government maintaining toll roads and using the tolls only to pay for that exact stretch of road. But they're not even too happy about that, because they don't see why a private business couldn't do the same thing.

At any rate, you're still left with the fact that Libertarians prefer a vastly smaller size government than what is in place. I dunno, I'm guessing if you polled Libertarians they'd probably slash the budget in half, in not more.

The vast majority of people want a big-ass government. You can argue that the government puts you in jail if you don't pay taxes, but the government certainly doesn't force you to vote. If Libertarians want a smaller government, you are indeed telling most of the country that their decisions are not legitimate.

I don't see anything wrong with that really. There's not a single party, or a single voter that at some level doesn't believe they know what's right for the country. If you didn't feel that way, you probably wouldn't vote at all.

[Handy Smurf]

There was someone who wrote into the Star Tribune a couple months ago who thought that the income tax was unconstitutional.
Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax

[jcarwash31]

Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax
Thanks for that. I had trouble holding my laughter in. :D

[Orville Wrong]

ha. fighting with mr wrong on ce/p again.
... is like doing shots with an alcoholic. I'm not supposed to be in here. Blood pressure, y'know.

[Shlep]

I know at least three Libertarians that go nuts at the thought of their taxes going to roads they don't use. At best, they are willing to accept the government maintaining toll roads and using the tolls only to pay for that exact stretch of road. But they're not even too happy about that, because they don't see why a private business couldn't do the same thing.

To that I would say that Libertarians have the same capacity to be slightly daffy as Democrats and Republicans.

At any rate, you're still left with the fact that Libertarians prefer a vastly smaller size government than what is in place.

Yes.

I dunno, I'm guessing if you polled Libertarians they'd probably slash the budget in half, in not more.

Perhaps.

The vast majority of people want a big-ass government.

Upon what do you base this assertion?

You can argue that the government puts you in jail if you don't pay taxes, but the government certainly doesn't force you to vote. If Libertarians want a smaller government, you are indeed telling most of the country that their decisions are not legitimate.

If I'm following you correctly, it seems that you're saying that most people prefer the massive, bloated, frequently inefficient and often needlessly intrusive government by virtue of the fact that people keep voting for candidates of the two main parties who, when up for election, make it a point to promise people lots of stuff, often making the contradictory claims of lowering taxes while providing more government services.

If so, than I'd say your reasoning is wholly flawed. For one thing, if there's something that the Dems and the GOP agree on, it's that they like being elected, and have passed reams of campaign legislation that makes getting on the ballot in enough states to be a serious contender a Herculean labor. And even after managing to do so (as Mike Badnarik did in 2004, getting on the ballot in 48 states) any alternative to whatever pair of pantloads either of the two main parties is offering that year is treated dismissively if not shut out of the process entirely. They don't get invited to debate, they don't get a single fraction of the media coverage afforded to the Dems and the GOP, and if they are mentioned it's only in the context of portraying them as a potential "spoiler" candidate who is going to steal votes from either the GOP or the Dems and shift the balance of the election in some direction that it ought not to be going...the very idea that 3rd parties are legitimate parties with the same right to be part of the political process, and who earn votes as opposed to "stealing" them from one of the two parties who (it would seem) have an inalienable right to them seemingly is never even considered.

I seem to recall an awful lot of bitching last year by people who cliamed to dislike Bush (or Kerry) but were nonetheless going to vote for Bush (or Kerry) becuase the only thing worse than Bush (or Kerry) in office was Kerry (or Bush) as President. And that's to say nothing of the leagions of people who are content to sit around and bitch about the government and then either don't vote or insist on voting for the guy they dislike less and then wonder why nothing ever changes. Hardly a resounding mandate from The People in either case.

[the happy prole]

If I'm following you correctly, it seems that you're saying that most people prefer the massive, bloated, frequently inefficient and often needlessly intrusive government by virtue of the fact that people keep voting for candidates of the two main parties who, when up for election, make it a point to promise people lots of stuff, often making the contradictory claims of lowering taxes while providing more government services.

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not denying that the odds are stacked against third party candidates, but the majority is *always* going to gang up on the minority. You think that isn't part of a free marketplace?

We have the government that people wanted. No one threatened anyone with violence for voting Libertarian, right? So their vote was their choice. Are you accusing people of not being rational actors? Of being too lazy to start a grass roots campaign for their candidate, or too stupid to understand the possibility of a third or fourth option?

So the media doesn't cover Libertarian candidates. Big deal. You certainly aren't going to force them to cover topics that aren't in their interest are you?

What you're doing is no different than liberals accusing the Christian right of stealing the vote. Or conservatives accusing the Unions or "radical environmentalists," or whatever.

[Orville Wrong]

Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not denying that the odds are stacked against third party candidates, but the majority is *always* going to gang up on the minority. You think that isn't part of a free marketplace?
I don't feel like I'm getting much out of this purported "gang up." I'm white, and it's harder for me to get into law school? What a rip-off.

[Studebaker289]

First the mommy liberal and the daddy liberal meet in a hip-trendster type bar or coffeeshop then after getting matching chin bolts they fall in love
after that...oh wait wrong thread ... this one might have children present

[Shlep]

We have the government that people wanted. No one threatened anyone with violence for voting Libertarian, right? So their vote was their choice. Are you accusing people of not being rational actors? Of being too lazy to start a grass roots campaign for their candidate, or too stupid to understand the possibility of a third or fourth option?

I'd say "All of the above" and more. When someone maintains that they dislike and have little trust in someone, but are going to vote for them anyway because he is not the other guy, I don't consider as being particularly smart or rational.

I take the same view of someone who says "Sure, I'd vote 3rd party, but then I'd be throwing my vote away...so instead, I'll vote for whatever chucklhead the Republicans (or Democrats) trot out just to prevent the Democrats (or Republicans) from winning." I heard of lot of that in 2004-- people voting out of fear.

Likewise, when someone bemoans having two crappy choices as though a third one is not even available, then I think that's not too bright.

So the media doesn't cover Libertarian candidates. Big deal. You certainly aren't going to force them to cover topics that aren't in their interest are you?

I was under the impression that covering Presidential condidates was a chief interest of the media during Presidential elections. I think that the media either not deigning to cover third parties, or giving them lousy coverage when they do, is a disservice.

What you're doing is no different than liberals accusing the Christian right of stealing the vote. Or conservatives accusing the Unions or "radical environmentalists," or whatever.

I fail to see how.

[the happy prole]

I don't feel like I'm getting much out of this purported "gang up." I'm white, and it's harder for me to get into law school? What a rip-off.

Surely you're not going to claim that going to law school constitutes a right and argue for expanding Federal government, are you?

There are plenty of private law schools out there that make their own policies. And plenty of states will even give you a tuition break for going to a private school so you can get your tax money back. And there's not a single Federal grant or loan that uses race as a basis for eligibility.

So unless you want the government meddling into how private institutions should run their admissions-- which surely you don't-- then suck it up and study harder. I'm pretty sure you can make it if you try.

[the happy prole]

I'd say "All of the above" and more. When someone maintains that they dislike and have little trust in someone, but are going to vote for them anyway because he is not the other guy, I don't consider as being particularly smart or rational.

I take the same view of someone who says "Sure, I'd vote 3rd party, but then I'd be throwing my vote away...so instead, I'll vote for whatever chucklhead the Republicans (or Democrats) trot out just to prevent the Democrats (or Republicans) from winning." I heard of lot of that in 2004-- people voting out of fear.

Likewise, when someone bemoans having two crappy choices as though a third one is not even available, then I think that's not too bright.

I dunno, it sounds a lot to me like you might be saying the average person pretty much swallows what they're told, instead of making critical distinctions like yourself. It'd really be a shame if you formed some of your views while being educated at an institution of higher learning. A PUBLIC institution of higher learning, no less. Because only Liberals try to pull that shit.

It also seems to me that what you're saying sounds an awful lot like a certain leading conservative economic/political theory. But that's completely impossible considering the liberal-filled PC nazi university you went to. I mean who the hell at GMU would know the first thing about public choice theory?!? :p

[akip]

I'm not supposed to be in here.

you were such a randy guy in randomville. getting bored already?

[Shlep]

I dunno, it sounds a lot to me like you might be saying the average person pretty much swallows what they're told, instead of making critical distinctions like yourself. It'd really be a shame if you formed some of your views while being educated at an institution of higher learning. A PUBLIC institution of higher learning, no less. Because only Liberals try to pull that shit.

Actually, I don't presume to know how or what the average person thinks; we have politicians, their campaign managers, and pundits with great hair with cable talk shows for that. I just make what I think or logical inferences based on the info available to me from perusing the media, talking with people such as yourself on messageboards, and my own experiences and observations. Considering the most recent election, it was my understanding that:

1) There were enough "undecideds" in the polls to practically form their own voting block. I found this group of individuals portrayed as a bunch who would make or break the 2004 election, and they were courted by both parties. When asked who they thought they preferred, I'm unaware of a single polling that even suggested that there was a choice other than Bush or Kerry.

2) I heard plenty of grousing about how both candidates were lightweight, empty-suit types who seemed possessed of all the character and strong ethical fiber needed for stern statesmanship in difficult times of a used car salesman. Again, I recall zero mention of asking if they wanted to try Door #3.

In my own experience, I found that pretty much without fail when some undecided person (particularly if they were a disillusioned conservative) expressed such concern, and I mentioned the Libertarian Party, they stated that they did not want to "throw my vote away." I personally fail to see how voting for someone you like as opposed to voting for someone you don't is "throwing your vote away," since I thought the whole point of the exercise was to use our votes to tell our elected officials where we stood. My own father, a man who I consider to be extremely well-informed, intelligent, and most of all wise, got on my case when I mentioned I was voting for Badnarik for "being fashionable" and casting a useless "protest vote" (the idea that I actually supported my candidate never seemed to occur to him) in an election where the outcome was so critical.

3) My candidate who was on the ballot in 48 states (I don't wish to flog this point to death, but I happen to think it's highly relevant and important) and was mentioned, to my knowledge, zero times on any of the endless parade of political talk shows that analyzed every speech and gesture by Bush and Kerry to death. One would have been under the impression third parties did not exist, save for some cursory lip service paid to Ralph Nader, and even then the reportage took the standard tone of major media coverage of third parties by portraying him as some fringe kook engaged in quixotic windmill-tilting who presented the looming threat of being a "spoiler;" of course, Nader is a bit of a nutter, so that's not entirely off-base. But anytime a third party is mentioned, they're called potential "spoilers" as though the notion that they have anything substantive to contribute to the political process is laughable.

I find it interesting that with all the braying on about how Bush allegedly stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, I've not noticed a peep on indignation regarding the virtual deliberate exclusion of third-party contenders from the process.

[the happy prole]

Perhaps you should take that as a cue about personal preferences.

See, that's the thing. You don't get to complain about the press. Social Conservatives get to complain about the "liberal elites" and the left-wing media. Liberals get to complain about Fox and how come the government doesn't legislate the media debates to give third party candidates more time.

And you-- you get to call both sides whiners and feel like a bad-ass for not needing the government. You get to carp about every last tax dollar the government drains from you to give to corporations or poor people.

You don't get to complain about admissions policies or the PUBLIC university you attended because you sucked on that big government teat just like everyone else. You don't get to complain about the PRIVATE press not giving your candidate equal time. And you certainly don't get to affiliate yourself with the common person.


You know what public choice economists call the "not so bright" you referred to? They're called "rationally ignorant." Now I happen to agree with that premise, but I don't pretend it isn't snobby as shit.

When you say you want small government even when that government is undeniably freely elected by the majority of the people, you are making the assertion that the majority of people can't be trusted to elect competent officials. You're also making the assertion that damn near every person that works for the government is less competent than someone in private industry.

Libertarianism is, in many respects, about as arrogant a political theory as you can get. You don't get points for trying, or for being a "good person." You kick so much ass that people have to recognize your ability or you get nothing. It's a very cocky, somewhat inhospitable philosophy. Doesn't mean it's not right, but it certainly isn't something that reaches out to the common person.

[Orville Wrong]

Surely you're not going to claim that going to law school constitutes a right and argue for expanding Federal government, are you?
Um, how about just not having race-based quotas? Would that expand the gov't?

There are plenty of private law schools out there that make their own policies.
But they aren't subsidized by ME in return for the privilege of not being given an equal opportunity to attend.

And plenty of states will even give you a tuition break for going to a private school so you can get your tax money back. And there's not a single Federal grant or loan that uses race as a basis for eligibility.
Sure, fine.

So unless you want the government meddling into how private institutions should run their admissions-- which surely you don't-- then suck it up and study harder. I'm pretty sure you can make it if you try.
I don't want to go to law school. And white people DO study harder, partly to overcome this nonsense. So in the end you can see what quotas do. They produce substandard black lawyers and dropouts.

Circular arguments like this are beneath you, prole.

[akip]

And white people DO study harder, partly to overcome this nonsense. So in the end you can see what quotas do. They produce substandard black lawyers and dropouts.



you really think this is the problem?

in the universe where i live, it's not race-based quotas keeping most deserving students from being admitted to public universities. you have straight-A students who can't get in because good, "affordable" universities have become ultra-competitive at the top, not because minorities are flooding in at the bottom---most students who can't cut it, no matter what their background, drop out the second year anyway, as you yourself mention above. it's an environment where fewer and fewer students can coast their way through.

below there's a link to an article posted by back2vinyl in another argument that took place in your unexplained absence. "country clubization" of universities, as well as the educational demands of the technology economy, are driving admissions WAY more than race quotas. why waste all that emotional energy focusing on one increasingly insignificant factor? look at the facts in 2005. it ain't 1980 anymore. this is free market america on the upswing. it's already going your way, orville. jeez, you're such a freakin' purist.

http://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20050519-kronholz.html

[Orville Wrong]

you really think this is the problem?
It is A problem, and one that is easy to fix -- hence the focus. Just stop having quotas. Easy.

The other stuff I frankly couldn't give two shits about. Universities confer credentials that can make you rich. They are competitive, and expensive -- Shocking!

[akip]

The other stuff I frankly couldn't give two shits about. Universities confer credentials that can make you rich. They are competitive, and expensive -- Shocking!

like i said, it's going your way.

[the happy prole]

There's no strict racial quotas legislated for any public universities. SOME universities chose to give preferential treatment based on race to promote diversity on their campuses. Their admissions policies are set by a Board. This is the exact same thing that happens at the private institutions, who also give preference to minorities in certain situations.

Since you feel so strongly about fairness at higher ed institutions, I'm sure you also have a problem with public universities taking less-qualified white students from rural, underachieving areas. And with giving preferential treatment to legacies and the children of donors. And with public institutions taking students from out-of-state at the expense of in-state students who are funding the institution with their taxes.

Because each of those three things probably knocks out a lot more qualified white students than any race-based preferences. And if you're going to get into all that stuff, you're really asking the government to poke it's nose into the higher ed business a lot more than it does right now.

[akip]

Since you feel so strongly about fairness at higher ed institutions, I'm sure you also have a problem with public universities taking less-qualified white students from rural, underachieving areas. And with giving preferential treatment to legacies and the children of donors. And with public institutions taking students from out-of-state at the expense of in-state students who are funding the institution with their taxes.

Because each of those three things probably knocks out a lot more qualified white students than any race-based preferences. And if you're going to get into all that stuff, you're really asking the government to poke it's nose into the higher ed business a lot more than it does right now.

bravo, hp!! :D :cool:

[the_birds]

*I feel a BLAST coming on...

[akip]

There's no strict racial quotas legislated for any public universities. SOME universities chose to give preferential treatment based on race to promote diversity on their campuses. Their admissions policies are set by a Board. This is the exact same thing that happens at the private institutions, who also give preference to minorities in certain situations.


exactly. i forgot to add there are other reasons for promoting diversity in academic institutions, most of them self-serving. these institutions, public and private, are making calculated business decisions. they're intensely interested in their own rankings and their own financial survival.

[Orville Wrong]

There's no strict racial quotas legislated for any public universities. SOME universities chose to give preferential treatment based on race to promote diversity on their campuses. Their admissions policies are set by a Board. This is the exact same thing that happens at the private institutions, who also give preference to minorities in certain situations.

Since you feel so strongly about fairness at higher ed institutions, I'm sure you also have a problem with public universities taking less-qualified white students from rural, underachieving areas. And with giving preferential treatment to legacies and the children of donors. And with public institutions taking students from out-of-state at the expense of in-state students who are funding the institution with their taxes.

Because each of those three things probably knocks out a lot more qualified white students than any race-based preferences. And if you're going to get into all that stuff, you're really asking the government to poke it's nose into the higher ed business a lot more than it does right now.

Yeah, prole, that's exactly what I said... except for all of it. Legislation/schmegislation... if a University owned and operated by the state implements a quota, based on any criteria (including being a Holler Crawler), by any means, they are doing so in my name. This is unacceptable, and frankly the behavior of an ingrate.

I don't really give a fuck about fairness, per se, I care about merit.

Regrettably, since public universities already exist, I'm stuck with a fallback position as to how they manage their admissions in my name.

Ideally, public universities should be privatized, or be razed to the ground and the earth salted where they stood.

After Ohio State football season ends, of course.

[akip]

if a University owned and operated by the state implements a quota, based on any criteria (including being a Holler Crawler), by any means, they are doing so in my name. This is unacceptable, and frankly the behavior of an ingrate.


doing so in your name? bullshit. they're interested in the private donations of people with more money and clout than you have. and some of them, as you pointed out, are deep-pocket liberals.

that's fundraising in a free market society where govt donations are a ever-smaller share of the budget pie.

[purple_octopus]

that's fundraising in a free market society where govt donations are a ever-smaller share of the budget pie.
If taxpayer dollars are so insignificant, why don't they just privatize? Then as a private institution, they won't have to answer to the taxpayers on their actions.

[akip]

If taxpayer dollars are so insignificant, why don't they just privatize? Then as a private institution, they won't have to answer to the taxpayers on their actions.

because states have to offer universities to attract an economic base.

because middle class people are still having kids and it's still cheaper to send them to an in-state university.

it's just reality. it's the way things work.

[markalot]

because states have to offer universities to attract an economic base.

because middle class people are still having kids and it's still cheaper to send them to an in-state university.

it's just reality. it's the way things work.

And it's just a reality that many of us don't like it. Quotas are obscene.

[akip]

before i run off, just wanted to add.

the race quota argument is a straw man used by politicos to stir up their base.

it's more interesting to consider how this country is going to retool for the 21st century. we could lose our r & d advantage to japan, china, etc, if we don't educate the scientists and engineers of the future.

that's the crux of the issue. it's worth a few tax dollars to maintain our edge in a global labor market. i'm not such an ideologue as some of my conservative friends here.

[purple_octopus]

we could lose our r & d advantage to japan, china, etc, if we don't educate the scientists and engineers of the future.

that's the crux of the issue. it's worth a few tax dollars to maintain our edge in a global labor market. i'm not such an ideologue as some of my conservative friends here.
And we're going to do that by..... lowering standards to satisfy race quotas?

Okay then...

[akip]

And we're going to do that by..... lowering standards to satisfy race quotas?

Okay then...

believe me, they're not lowering their standards---they're raising them.

like i said before, some kids with straight As are not being accepted into their own home-state universities. it's got everything to do with competition from the high achievers. kids are taking multiple advanced placement classes and doing homework till 3 in the morning to compete.

things have changed radically since i went to umass, when it was cheap and any schnook could get in.

[icehouse]

Speaking as a pretty staunch liberal on most issues, this is a question that intriques me. Some in my family (most did not attend college) will joke that I went off to college and then became liberal. They seem to blame the university/faculty for this evolution of my political philosophies. This is something that is heralded by conservatives in this country, that a "liberal bias" is seen in our colleges trying to convert our nice young republicans into bleeding hearts.

But how does this happen? It's not as if universities offer liberalism 101. If someone has conservative leanings, even if a Professor is a liberal, the conservative wouldn't just take an opinion as their own because they are told to would they?

My theory is that college teaches us to think more critically. To dig deeper into the meaning of things, why things happen in this world. College forces us to ask the question "why?"

This emersion into deeper thought and understanding, in my opinion, is what creates a more left wing individual, not some liberal pushers in the university itself.

Often as folks get older however, this becomes difficult to do. It is much easier not to dig into issues for real understanding but to just take at face value what we are told on the television. Add to that the fact that selfishly the conservative stand helps the older, financially stable person, and there is a group of older individuals voting republican. As boomers reach this age it may give another reason for our country becoming more conservative of late. Sorry off topic there for a moment.

But what do you think?

speaking strictly as the moderate I am...I think these are the kind of discussions that prove how out of touch most people are; both conservative and liberal. Face up, most americans really don't care. It's the truth. Look at voter turn out. Look at elections. It would be nice to blame it on college or age but I think it goes to deeper seeded issues like identity. Some people feel ethically obligated to vote; some feel they ought to protect their own interests; some people want to save the dolphins; some people are pacifists; some people believe we are going to hell. Myself for example: I am a fiscal conservative...a budget should be balanced (Bush is a fiscal liberal, Clinton and Daddy Bush were fiscal conservatives), I believe this country would greatly benefit from campain reform with SOLID limits (alas McCain's efforts were in vain), at last check I didn't have a womb so I am pro-choice, and I could list a ton more reasons I don't fit the mold but my point remains: overall I am greatful for my life, I love the choices I have (Charmin vs. Quilted Northern), OVERALL I AM HAPPY (this is my identity) AND I LOVE TO LAUGH AT THE WHACK_JOBS OF BOTH ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM.

Note: One of my most hardcore republican friends explained to me how Bush has been more liberal then Clinton was...if you think about it, this is a valid point...many of Bush's stances are not typical for the Republican Party.