Why is there so much liberal and socialist bias on the escapist?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Xanthious:

Vivi22:

GunsmithKitten:

We do. It's called payroll taxes.

Yeah, no matter how much we point this out to him he seems to refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Or at least, refuses to recognize that they are legitimate taxes people pay even if they don't pay income tax come April. He also doesn't seem to recognize sales taxes as a real thing either. At least not when recognizing their existence would invalidate his arguments.

Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare. As for sales taxes, well those are applied at a state level with some states not having a sales tax at all.

My point still stands. That point being that there are a massive number of people that contribute fuck all. All their federal income taxes are returned to them and often times they actually make money when tax time rolls around. Meanwhile the money they pay in SSI and Medicare taxes will also be returned and then some once they reach the appropriate age.

So I guess technically speaking the poor pay fuck all except to contribute a small amount into two services that will likely pay back what small amount of money they contribute multiple times over and at a state level they might pay a few sales taxes depending on the state and their individual shopping habits. They still contribute nothing. They are a net drain on society.

Yeah, I can totally understand how you hate all those mooching, parasitic folks like active duty soldiers. Oh, didn't you know? When a soldier is on active duty, they're exempt from income taxes., thus putting them into your "contributing fuck-all" category.

Same goes for retired folks. After they stopped working, they aren't paying income taxes either.

Or, perhaps the worst of the worst: under-age children who haven't gotten off their lazy butts to go out and work at some job even though they are below the age of 12. Stinking parasites, every last one of them.

Or, and I understand this is a REALLY radical idea, you could perhaps try looking at the world as it is and not as you seem to demand it to be, Xanthious. Nothing is ever quite so cut-and-dried simple as we want it to be. And no matter how much you work so very hard to avoid facts, they remain facts.

Xanthious:
Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare. As for sales taxes, well those are applied at a state level with some states not having a sales tax at all.

My point still stands. That point being that there are a massive number of people that contribute fuck all. All their federal income taxes are returned to them and often times they actually make money when tax time rolls around. Meanwhile the money they pay in SSI and Medicare taxes will also be returned and then some once they reach the appropriate age.

So I guess technically speaking the poor pay fuck all except to contribute a small amount into two services that will likely pay back what small amount of money they contribute multiple times over and at a state level they might pay a few sales taxes depending on the state and their individual shopping habits. They still contribute nothing. They are a net drain on society.

It's already been pointed out to you, in response to the idiotic comments made by Mitt Romney and discussed in another thread, that the majority of the people who don't pay income tax are the elderly, veterans, etc. Not the poor.

In other words, people who spent years, if not decades, paying into their government and sacrificing for their country. Would you care to stop misrepresenting the truth for a change or are you going to continue to argue a point of view which is based on lies?

Xanthious:

Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare.

The "payroll taxes only go to SSI", as pointed out in a similar thread via an article by a RIGHT WING ECONOMIST, was a political accounting Svengali act by FDR to actually make SSI more palatable to the right wing of the time, a political trap that people like you blunder right into even to this very day.

they are a net drain on society.

Again, judge a man not by the color of his skin NOR the content of his character, but by the size of his bank account.

Hey Xanth, I may or may not have pointed this out yet, but if you right wingers would recognize me and my GF's marriage to each other, I would be bumped up to a higher bracket and I would be paying income taxes. See, she has a very well paying job, me not so much, and as a result she pays income tax while I do not. And if we were married, well, I wouldn't be a "net drain on society".

davidmc1158:

Xanthious:

Vivi22:

Yeah, no matter how much we point this out to him he seems to refuse to acknowledge that they exist. Or at least, refuses to recognize that they are legitimate taxes people pay even if they don't pay income tax come April. He also doesn't seem to recognize sales taxes as a real thing either. At least not when recognizing their existence would invalidate his arguments.

Oh they exist but that doesn't change the fact that they still are contributing fuck all except to two services they are likely to take vastly more from than they pay into. Because the only thing these "payroll taxes" are is SSI and Medicare. As for sales taxes, well those are applied at a state level with some states not having a sales tax at all.

My point still stands. That point being that there are a massive number of people that contribute fuck all. All their federal income taxes are returned to them and often times they actually make money when tax time rolls around. Meanwhile the money they pay in SSI and Medicare taxes will also be returned and then some once they reach the appropriate age.

So I guess technically speaking the poor pay fuck all except to contribute a small amount into two services that will likely pay back what small amount of money they contribute multiple times over and at a state level they might pay a few sales taxes depending on the state and their individual shopping habits. They still contribute nothing. They are a net drain on society.

Yeah, I can totally understand how you hate all those mooching, parasitic folks like active duty soldiers. Oh, didn't you know? When a soldier is on active duty, they're exempt from income taxes., thus putting them into your "contributing fuck-all" category.

Same goes for retired folks. After they stopped working, they aren't paying income taxes either.

Or, perhaps the worst of the worst: under-age children who haven't gotten off their lazy butts to go out and work at some job even though they are below the age of 12. Stinking parasites, every last one of them.

Or, and I understand this is a REALLY radical idea, you could perhaps try looking at the world as it is and not as you seem to demand it to be, Xanthious. Nothing is ever quite so cut-and-dried simple as we want it to be. And no matter how much you work so very hard to avoid facts, they remain facts.

Well, that's part of the Republican mantra; judge a man not on the color of his skin NOR the content of his character, but by the size of his bank account.

Vivi22:
It's already been pointed out to you, in response to the idiotic comments made by Mitt Romney and discussed in another thread, that the majority of the people who don't pay income tax are the elderly, veterans, etc. Not the poor.

In other words, people who spent years, if not decades, paying into their government and sacrificing for their country. Would you care to stop misrepresenting the truth for a change or are you going to continue to argue a point of view which is based on lies?

This still does nothing to change the fact that those people are still a net drain on society even if you remove the people you mentioned. The poor and lower middle class pay nothing at all except for what they pay into SSI and Medicare and that money will come back multiple times over once they reach retirement age. In fact a good many of them get checks for multiple thousands of dollars more than they paid in the form of tax refund checks every year. I bet we'd save a significant amount of money yearly by simply doing away with the Earned Income credits.

JRslinger:
I given a one sided indoctrination regarding global warming in the 8th grade. American history was mostly told to us as the bad things that white people did to minorities, effectively promoting "white guilt" and ignoring the fact that people of any color can be racist. When students voted on a class logo showing a fist with a class ring, the school principal vetoed it because it was "violent". These are the examples I remember most about the liberal bias I saw firsthand.

Ignore the effects of global warming at your own peril; for at the current rate we are going, water shortages, failing crops, flooding, and even more severe storm systems are likely going to be ever more prominent in our future. Global warming is happening right now with its effects being felt worldwide. Both experts and studies agree it's being propagated by our influence; it is not a 'liberal' belief, nor a matter of belief whatsoever.

History isn't taught for the purpose of dumping guilt upon the descendants of our ancestors. History is taught to be learned from, and in some sense possibly prevent oneself (and society) from committing past egregious mistakes (e.g. racism as a basis for societal structure). Your assessment of history as a way to foster 'white guilt' is a shallow and ridiculously biased strawman.

Also teachers require a college education before they can teach. Most colleges are very liberal environments, thus these prospective teachers absorb the liberal teachings from this environment. My experience at a large university was that the liberal voice was much larger than the conservative one.

This has less to do with 'liberal' bias than it does with what major skill is fostered at universities: the ability to critically think and assess problems and issues holistically rather than from any one particular perspective. Are you suggesting we should do otherwise?

"People aren't fostering my beliefs exclusively, therefore they must be biased" - are you really that unable to see how unsubstantial and terribly biased your own argument is?

It may not matter how much teachers tell kids not to bully gays, because from what I learned in school is that if you are different than the majority and unpopular, you are likely to get bullied, and this was in a liberal town with mostly liberal teachers.

Again, another fragmented nonsensical misdirection. Teachers are not the sole influence on children. The media and the extent of its influence have to be considered, as does immediate family and friends. There are also the neurological and psychological aspects as well. Change in a society does not occur from any particular single source: it has to come from a multiplicity of aspects. We work with what influence and power we have and more often than not, hope for the best. Being fatalistic about needed change because one person cannot change a society overnight is just not being realistic or sensible.

Xanthious:

Vivi22:
It's already been pointed out to you, in response to the idiotic comments made by Mitt Romney and discussed in another thread, that the majority of the people who don't pay income tax are the elderly, veterans, etc. Not the poor.

In other words, people who spent years, if not decades, paying into their government and sacrificing for their country. Would you care to stop misrepresenting the truth for a change or are you going to continue to argue a point of view which is based on lies?

This still does nothing to change the fact that those people are still a net drain on society even if you remove the people you mentioned. The poor and lower middle class pay nothing at all except for what they pay into SSI and Medicare and that money will come back multiple times over once they reach retirement age. In fact a good many of them get checks for multiple thousands of dollars more than they paid in the form of tax refund checks every year. I bet we'd save a significant amount of money yearly by simply doing away with the Earned Income credits.

Hard to argue with a person who has already made up the conclusion in their mind and is willing to twist and tear the actuality of things into a form to suit said conclusion.

Are you here to present anything in the form of fact, or are you just here to make yourself more comfortable in your beliefs? Because as it stands, you have many assertions, but very little to support them besides your unending willingness to disagree vehemently on sheer principle with those who disagree with you.

Internet community, gamers with a tendency to be in a younger age group, a large non-U.S. userbase, most have at least some significant education...

Pretty clear why it tends to lean that way.

Hap2:

History isn't taught for the purpose of dumping guilt upon the descendants of our ancestors.

Yet it is successful at doing so.

Hap2:

This has less to do with 'liberal' bias than it does with what major skill is fostered at universities: the ability to critically think and assess problems and issues holistically rather than from any one particular perspective. Are you suggesting we should do otherwise?

Oh I see, you think that critical thinking is taught at schools, which was not my experience. Being presented with only the liberal side of multiple issues doesn't promote critical thinking, it's merely slamming students with liberal dogma.

Xanthious:
I bet we'd save a significant amount of money yearly by simply doing away with the Earned Income credits.

Going with your gut over facts again? Present some evidence and myself and others may actually begin to take your position seriously.

But the reality is that those who actually do get more than they paid at tax time are such a small proportion of the federal budget as to be insignificant compared to things that are actually large like defense spending.

Unless the people getting back more than they paid in which you refer to are companies like GE who get back billions and pay nothing in corporate income tax. If you're talking about them, then yes, we would save a significant amount of money if their credits were reduced and their tax rates increased. In fact, the savings from GE alone could easily be in the hundreds of millions, if not a billion plus without "burdening" them with any income tax. Because those poor job creators getting billions back from the government have it so rough.

Careful Xan. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Vivi22:
In fact, the savings from GE alone could easily be in the hundreds of millions, if not a billion plus without "burdening" them with any income tax. Because those poor job creators getting billions back from the government have it so rough.

Well words can not describe how fitting it is you mention GE. I agree, GE is getting away with far too much. They are paying as close to nothing to make no difference when it comes to taxes. Here's the thing though GE was one of the single biggest contributors to The Anointed One's 2008 campaign. In fact they donated so much fucking money went and hired the former CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, and made him the fucking chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Then, if that wasn't enough, The Obama Administration made sure that the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, which GE was a huge part of because of their connection to NBC Universal, went through as smoothly as a baby's ass. That deal was estimated to be worth upwards of 30 billion dollars.

Since we are on the topic of crony capitalism I think it would be a swell time to bring up that in the 2008 election donations from the major Wall St banks like JP Morgan favored Obama by more than three times the amount that McCain received. It was money well spent though Obama did throw them a few massive bail outs after all.

My point is that while liberals love to point the finger at The Right for being in the pocket of big business one of their own, Barack Hussein Obama, has been bought and paid for by Government Electric, Wall Street, General Motors, failed green energy companies like Solyndra , and likely many more and he now sits firmly in their pocket doing happy to look the other way or do the occasional favor.

Xanthious:
The poor and lower middle class pay nothing at all except for what they pay into SSI and Medicare and that money will come back multiple times over once they reach retirement age.

Xanth, if you're going to keep singing that tune long after it was debunked elsewhere, and debunked by a conservative source no less, I'm ignoring you, as you have no interest whatsoever in interaction greater than hearing your own proverbial voice.

Captcha: stop wasting time. Yea, it's felt like it with you.

JRslinger:

Hap2:

History isn't taught for the purpose of dumping guilt upon the descendants of our ancestors.

Yet it is successful at doing so.

Hap2:

This has less to do with 'liberal' bias than it does with what major skill is fostered at universities: the ability to critically think and assess problems and issues holistically rather than from any one particular perspective. Are you suggesting we should do otherwise?

Oh I see, you think that critical thinking is taught at schools, which was not my experience. Being presented with only the liberal side of multiple issues doesn't promote critical thinking, it's merely slamming students with liberal dogma.

Yes, JR, we get it. Those evil mean liberals are out to brainwash you at every single corner. Jooooooooooooooin the hiiiiiiive miiiiiiiiiiiiiind. It's not like the Conservatives ever promote having our children thrown into a place every Sunday morning to hear a bunch of things that contradict modern science and simple reality.

Oh wait, they do.

Xanthious:
Well words can not describe how fitting it is you mention GE. I agree, GE is getting away with far too much. They are paying as close to nothing to make no difference when it comes to taxes. Here's the thing though GE was one of the single biggest contributors to The Anointed One's 2008 campaign. In fact they donated so much fucking money went and hired the former CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, and made him the fucking chairman on the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Then, if that wasn't enough, The Obama Administration made sure that the Comcast/NBC Universal merger, which GE was a huge part of because of their connection to NBC Universal, went through as smoothly as a baby's ass. That deal was estimated to be worth upwards of 30 billion dollars.

Since we are on the topic of crony capitalism I think it would be a swell time to bring up that in the 2008 election donations from the major Wall St banks like JP Morgan favored Obama by more than three times the amount that McCain received. It was money well spent though Obama did throw them a few massive bail outs after all.

My point is that while liberals love to point the finger at The Right for being in the pocket of big business one of their own, Barack Hussein Obama, has been bought and paid for by Government Electric, Wall Street, General Motors, failed green energy companies like Solyndra , and likely many more and he now sits firmly in their pocket doing happy to look the other way or do the occasional favor.

A few things we need to cover here Xan:

First: how nice of you to completely ignore the point and try and divert the conversation by changing the topic to Obama rather than dealing with the fact that corporate welfare is a much larger drain on the government than actual welfare. I take this as a sign that you have no rebuttal and accept your concession that you've been wrong all this time and individuals who are on welfare or not paying income tax are but a minor drain on the government compared to other, far larger issues both in scope and magnitude.

Second: I'm not sure why you bothered to try and switch things around to take a few digs at Obama (not all of them even deserved). He's a bad president in a lot of ways, and calling him, or most democrats for that matter, liberals is laughable. Do yourself a favour and never move to Canada or a European nation Xan. The sight of actual Liberal politicians (I'm sorry, you'd probably call them socialists on a good day or commies if you wanted to fib some more) might make your head explode. Obama's civil rights record is so horrendous that calling him a Liberal is laughable, and the only people who do it are conservatives such as yourself. No self-respecting person who self-identifies as a Liberal in other parts of the world would vote for that man.

Third: It's funny how you only mention things from four years ago to argue Obama is bought and paid for by big business. I guess that's because you're every bit as aware as I am that big business is heavily favouring Romney and his Super Pacs this time around, with him beating Obama in campaign contributions by a fairly decent margin. If you actually looked at current trends in campaign contributions and spending you'd have to admit that Romney is at least every bit as bought and paid for. but even putting aside left versus right and who's bought and paid for, here's the honest truth and the only thing that really matters in the end: Your political system almost guarantees that only two parties can exist given enough time. And it also happens to ensure that those in power are bought and paid for by big business and lobbyists. It doesn't matter what political party or creed they claim to adhere to, they are both corrupt because the system favours those with more money over those with less. You don't live in a democracy, you live under a plutocracy, no matter what your politicians want you to believe. This is a very bad thing for you and anyone else not making a few hundred million a year, and you should be very worried the longer it is allowed to go on unchecked.

JRslinger:

Hap2:

History isn't taught for the purpose of dumping guilt upon the descendants of our ancestors.

Yet it is successful at doing so.

No reply for me? *sadface*

Again, I'm afraid history isn't going to be changing anytime soon, and using white-out (ironic, eh?) on the bits we don't like is not to anyone's benefit. In fact, we spent so long not teaching what happened to the Indians or slaves in the public school system we owe at least a few generations the full truth. So either deal with the fact that bad people did bad things back then and a number of them happened to be white, or live in your plastic bubble of lies because you're so afraid the past is going to jump off the book pages and hurt you.

Oh I see, you think that critical thinking is taught at schools, which was not my experience. Being presented with only the liberal side of multiple issues doesn't promote critical thinking, it's merely slamming students with liberal dogma.

Perhaps "your experience" involved biased teachers, I never met them so I can't really judge that, but are you seriously going to equate your experience to the whole of the public school system? Like, to every teacher in every school in every state across the country? That's...a stretch. Like, a big one. I mean I once had a bad experience at a Wendy's, but I'm not about to assume every single Wendy's in the country is like that. That would just be absurd.

JRslinger:

Hap2:

This has less to do with 'liberal' bias than it does with what major skill is fostered at universities: the ability to critically think and assess problems and issues holistically rather than from any one particular perspective. Are you suggesting we should do otherwise?

Oh I see, you think that critical thinking is taught at schools, which was not my experience. Being presented with only the liberal side of multiple issues doesn't promote critical thinking, it's merely slamming students with liberal dogma.

"Oh I see, you think that critical thinking is taught at schools, which was not my experience."

"which was not my experience."

Hehe. Clearly.

Here I am, having done a year of explicit critical thinking at school, years of study involving implicit critical thinking, and studying critical thinking and logic at university.

AND

All we've done so far in the non-logic courses is meta-theory and it's doing my head in, but what I can say is that it does a very good job of making you think critically. Lemme tell you:

So far, I've been exposed (in international politics alone) to Realism, Neo-Realism, Structural Realism, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Structural Liberalism, Feminism and Social Constructivism. And I'm only a month in. Guess which of those are "Liberal."

Perhaps the science students aren't taught to think particularly critically, being more concerned with catching up to the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. I dunno. I'm not doing a natural science/engineering or whatever. What did you study at university?

Lilani:

Again, I'm afraid history isn't going to be changing anytime soon, and using white-out (ironic, eh?) on the bits we don't like is not to anyone's benefit. In fact, we spent so long not teaching what happened to the Indians or slaves in the public school system we owe at least a few generations the full truth. So either deal with the fact that bad people did bad things back then and a number of them happened to be white, or live in your plastic bubble of lies because you're so afraid the past is going to jump off the book pages and hurt you.

There's a difference between teaching about something and over teaching it. What was ignored was bad things that dark skinned people did, which I think is why today so many liberals don't believe that dark skinned people could ever do anything wrong collectively. Thus a student in a liberal biased school will likely conclude that white= bad guy and dark= noble victim.

Danny Ocean:

Here I am, having done a year of explicit critical thinking at school, years of study involving implicit critical thinking, and studying critical thinking and logic at university.

AND

All we've done so far in the non-logic courses is meta-theory and it's doing my head in, but what I can say is that it does a very good job of making you think critically. Lemme tell you:

So far, I've been exposed (in international politics alone) to Realism, Neo-Realism, Structural Realism, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Structural Liberalism, Feminism and Social Constructivism. And I'm only a month in. Guess which of those are "Liberal."

Perhaps the science students aren't taught to think particularly critically, being more concerned with catching up to the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. I dunno. I'm not doing a natural science/engineering or whatever. What did you study at university?

[/quote]

My focus in college was on biology. I also took some unrelated courses, which didn't include anything you listed. I'm guessing that the feminism course is a liberal PC men=bad women=goddess lesson.

JRslinger:
What was ignored was bad things that dark skinned people did, which I think is why today so many liberals don't believe that dark skinned people could ever do anything wrong collectively. Thus a student in a liberal biased school will likely conclude that white= bad guy and dark= noble victim.

If I even have to explain the problem with this statement then there's probably no hope it would do any good.

I'm guessing that the feminism course is a liberal PC men=bad women=goddess lesson.

It's a course about feminism, so clearly it can't teach about legitimate feminist issues and is nothing but the liberal propaganda of the vagina squad meant to brainwash women into hating men and men into becoming transvestites.

JRslinger:

Lilani:

Again, I'm afraid history isn't going to be changing anytime soon, and using white-out (ironic, eh?) on the bits we don't like is not to anyone's benefit. In fact, we spent so long not teaching what happened to the Indians or slaves in the public school system we owe at least a few generations the full truth. So either deal with the fact that bad people did bad things back then and a number of them happened to be white, or live in your plastic bubble of lies because you're so afraid the past is going to jump off the book pages and hurt you.

There's a difference between teaching about something and over teaching it. What was ignored was bad things that dark skinned people did, which I think is why today so many liberals don't believe that dark skinned people could ever do anything wrong collectively. Thus a student in a liberal biased school will likely conclude that white= bad guy and dark= noble victim.

Danny Ocean:

Here I am, having done a year of explicit critical thinking at school, years of study involving implicit critical thinking, and studying critical thinking and logic at university.

AND

All we've done so far in the non-logic courses is meta-theory and it's doing my head in, but what I can say is that it does a very good job of making you think critically. Lemme tell you:

So far, I've been exposed (in international politics alone) to Realism, Neo-Realism, Structural Realism, Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Structural Liberalism, Feminism and Social Constructivism. And I'm only a month in. Guess which of those are "Liberal."

Perhaps the science students aren't taught to think particularly critically, being more concerned with catching up to the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. I dunno. I'm not doing a natural science/engineering or whatever. What did you study at university?

My focus in college was on biology. I also took some unrelated courses, which didn't include anything you listed. I'm guessing that the feminism course is a liberal PC men=bad women=goddess lesson.[/quote]

I dunno man, feminist/oldschool female courses arent all that bad. I got a choice between home-economics and football or carpenting. Guess whom in my circle of friend doesnt waste his whole budget on ordering pizza half the week (mwhahaha)....

Then again, by your logic every single school in my country would be a liberal school. I guess from the fact that about a 100% of the country believes in evolution you could conclude that we are biased towards... liberalism (I'd call it reality, but still) But we certainly didnt learn that black people were better than white people. Actually the way our history was taught was rather unbiased... More focused on facts than feelings, i mean. The one thing that was sorta grey was our course on Australian history and aboriginals.. But then again, the Imperium of Britts did sorta treat them like third-class citizens.

JRslinger:
There's a difference between teaching about something and over teaching it. What was ignored was bad things that dark skinned people did, which I think is why today so many liberals don't believe that dark skinned people could ever do anything wrong collectively. Thus a student in a liberal biased school will likely conclude that white= bad guy and dark= noble victim.

I did feel I was rather over-taught the American Revolution and the Civil War (our school system is severely lacking in world history), but that isn't the message I got from it at all. I was never made to feel like I was responsible for those things. That's just silly. The message I got was "people in the past were jerks." Not me, those people. Again, perhaps your teachers made you to feel that way, but unless you've got some evidence you can't logically apply that to every child. Again, that is like saying one bad experience at one Wendy's makes all the Wendy's in the world bad. One negative personal experience ≠ a national problem.

I did also, however, feel I was very over-taught "state pride." Seriously, half of my 8th grade year was spent memorizing the preamble, the state bird, the state fish, the state tree, all that shit. I didn't care about the state fish before the 8th grade, and I cared less afterward. And it's not even that we studied the preamble in-depth and looked into why the framers of the constitution wrote it like they did. They just wanted us to be able to regurgitate the words on command like a bunch of trained parrots--never thinking, just repeating all the nationalistic fluff they fed us like good little patriots.

Honestly, how is that supposed to get kids to care about their country? By that point they're, what, 4 years from being able to vote? Yes, I'm sure knowing the state tree and being able to recite the preamble at the drop of a hat will make them interested in politics. No wonder young voters don't often make it to the polls--they're afraid they aren't going to be allowed to vote unless they know the state fern and the author of the "Star Spangled Banner." Because that is what makes good, proud, functioning Americans--trivia.

To be honest even tho I am a conservative I just don't want my taxes to increase for services that don't benefit me. As long as it does not pick my pockets or break my bones, or limit my freedoms like the 1st, and 2nd, and 5th you can do anything you want. I don't like Mitt, but I dislike Obama.

Gergar12:
To be honest even tho I am a conservative I just don't want my taxes to increase for services that don't benefit me. As long as it does not pick my pockets or break my bones, or limit my freedoms like the 1st, and 2nd, and 5th you can do anything you want. I don't like Mitt, but I dislike Obama.

I'm afraid Mitt is still going to pick your pocket, he's just going to be a little more creative about it. Obama has no Presidential record of limiting the second amendment, nor has he shown particular interest in doing so in the last four years (in fact he increased gun rights by signing a bill that lets you take guns into national parks), so I think you're pretty safe there. I have no idea what you think he might do to the 5th amendment.

And as for the first amendment, I myself am a bit disgusted at how the GOP acts like it doesn't apply to them. Your religious values may lead you to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but according to the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free expression thereof." So you can believe what you like about gays, hell your church can even refuse to do services for them. But making legislation that defines marriage according to a specific religion's parameters? No, sir. The government end of a marriage is purely secular. That is why you can get married by a justice of the peace just as easily as an ordained minister.

So, yeah. I'm not particularly fond of Obama and I don't expect a lot out of him, but at least he isn't out to establish a theocracy, and at at least he has the balls to get people to pay taxes without straight-up lying to them about it.

Lilani:

Gergar12:
To be honest even tho I am a conservative I just don't want my taxes to increase for services that don't benefit me. As long as it does not pick my pockets or break my bones, or limit my freedoms like the 1st, and 2nd, and 5th you can do anything you want. I don't like Mitt, but I dislike Obama.

I'm afraid Mitt is still going to pick your pocket, he's just going to be a little more creative about it. Obama has no Presidential record of limiting the second amendment, nor has he shown particular interest in doing so in the last four years (in fact he increased gun rights by signing a bill that lets you take guns into national parks), so I think you're pretty safe there. I have no idea what you think he might do to the 5th amendment.

And as for the first amendment, I myself am a bit disgusted at how the GOP acts like it doesn't apply to them. Your religious values may lead you to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but according to the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free expression thereof." So you can believe what you like about gays, hell your church can even refuse to do services for them. But making legislation that defines marriage according to a specific religion's parameters? No, sir. The government end of a marriage is purely secular. That is why you can get married by a justice of the peace just as easily as an ordained minister.

So, yeah. I'm not particularly fond of Obama and I don't expect a lot out of him, but at least he isn't out to establish a theocracy, and at at least he has the balls to get people to pay taxes without straight-up lying to them about it.

Well its either Mitt or the guy who thinks medicare includes abortions.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-platform-endorses-taxpayer-funded-abortions_651589.html

Gergar12:
-snip-

Wait, so before the main things you were worried about were getting your pockets picked and the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments, and now losing all of that is okay because of one very vague plank in the Democratic platform, about an issue you weren't at all concerned about a moment ago?

Lilani:

Gergar12:
-snip-

Wait, so before the main things you were worried about were getting your pockets picked and the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments, and now losing all of that is okay because of one very vague plank in the Democratic platform, about an issue you weren't at all concerned about a moment ago?

Obama did take aim at the semi auto rifles, and for me he is way to politically correct. I don't like people who sugar code stuff. I wanted Ron Paul, but if I vote for Obama I will repeat the same mistake people made to vote for him in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-floating-new-semi-auto-ban-puts-administration-intent-above-the-radar

Gergar12:

Lilani:

Gergar12:
-snip-

Wait, so before the main things you were worried about were getting your pockets picked and the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments, and now losing all of that is okay because of one very vague plank in the Democratic platform, about an issue you weren't at all concerned about a moment ago?

Obama did take aim at the semi auto rifles, and for me he is way to politically correct. I don't like people who sugar code stuff. I wanted Ron Paul, but if I vote for Obama I will repeat the same mistake people made to vote for him in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-floating-new-semi-auto-ban-puts-administration-intent-above-the-radar

Oh, he talked about it? That's cute. Mitt's done him one better: As governor of Massachusetts in 2004, he signed signed a ban on assault weapons. In fact, the same kind of weapon that was used in the same Colorado massacre your article is using against Obama.

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-bans-assault-weapons-2012-7

So, that makes one for Obama's support of gun rights and one against Romney's support of it.

Politifact awarded him a half-flip on gun control, and frankly I don't even mind it. Weapons of that caliber need to be watched closely. I just don't like how people like to bang on about how Obama is apparently "so against" gun control when he's talked about controlling the same things people on every side have talked about controlling, and hasn't done anything significant in regard to pistols and conceal-carry laws.

Lilani:

Gergar12:

Lilani:

Wait, so before the main things you were worried about were getting your pockets picked and the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments, and now losing all of that is okay because of one very vague plank in the Democratic platform, about an issue you weren't at all concerned about a moment ago?

Obama did take aim at the semi auto rifles, and for me he is way to politically correct. I don't like people who sugar code stuff. I wanted Ron Paul, but if I vote for Obama I will repeat the same mistake people made to vote for him in the first place.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-floating-new-semi-auto-ban-puts-administration-intent-above-the-radar

Oh, he talked about it? That's cute. Mitt's done him one better: As governor of Massachusetts in 2004, he signed signed a ban on assault weapons. In fact, the same kind of weapon that was used in the same Colorado massacre your article is using against Obama.

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-bans-assault-weapons-2012-7

But Ar-15s are very common as well as handguns which is why must murders are done with handguns. Mitt was in a state that hated guns, and that was in 2004, Obama wants a ban on the entire nation. Cars in fact kill way more people,but we still have them.

So, that makes one for Obama's support of gun rights and one against Romney's support of it.

Politifact awarded him a half-flip on gun control, and frankly I don't even mind it. Weapons of that caliber need to be watched closely. I just don't like how people like to bang on about how Obama is apparently "so against" gun control when he's talked about controlling the same things people on every side have talked about controlling, and hasn't done anything significant in regard to pistols and conceal-carry laws.

But atleast he did for a state vs a nation, and cars kill more people than guns when talking about nonwar man deaths.

JRslinger:

My focus in college was on biology. I also took some unrelated courses, which didn't include anything you listed. I'm guessing that the feminism course is a liberal PC men=bad women=goddess lesson.

Not at all.

What is "Liberal PC" anyway? That's not even a thing.

It's been framed entirely as an example of an alternative ontology to the mainstream theories. The whole point was to make you question the majority views by showing you radical alternatives. There was no talk of men being bad or women being good, only a pointing out of the global inequality (which there is) and showing how a Feminist Interpretation of the international political world might differ from a Realist/Idealist perspective. Example: Realist needs to improve his security, uses methods coated in masculine language (shows of strength, protection, intelligence) such as increasing armed forces. A Feminist might think "Well, what ways could we do this that are 'feminine'?" Such as ensuring food/fuel security and good diplomatic relations. Are these necessarily feminine attributes, or an antagonistic response to the prevailing dialogue? Different? Yes. More appropriate for certain situations? Maybe. Better? No. They might ask how the international structure would be different were it run by 90% women rather than 90% men.

Personally I find it very hard to view the world in through the lens of the gender discourse, because I'm just so not sexist I just can't view the world that way. When they pointed out the terms associated with each archetype (Like "Intelligence" being masculine) I found myself disagreeing.

However, that's just me: a wealthy white British kid raised almost exclusively by women. I have no doubt that most of the world has far more ingrained gender expectations than me.

~~~~

Anyway, you didn't study any Epistemology/Ontology? Critical Thinking/Logic? Any politics or what? What were the other courses you took?

Gergar12:
But atleast he did for a state vs a nation, and cars kill more people than guns when talking about nonwar man deaths.

Now you're just making up excuses. You'll tear down Obama for some vague things he said but never acted on, but you'll excuse actual legislative action from Romney? You're just looking for excuses to dislike him. Had Obama passed what Romney passed, the GOP would be on him for that like the way Obama's been on Romney about the 47%. You know they would. He only got a free pass on guns and Romneycare because he's on their team.

It's okay to admit you might agree with the man on some issues, or that he's not as bad as some might think he is. There are a couple of things I sort of agree with Romney about. You keep name-dropping yourself as a "moderate," but the way you're just bound and determined to disagree with Obama I'm not so sure about that.

Danny Ocean:

Not at all.

What is "Liberal PC" anyway? That's not even a thing.

It's been framed entirely as an example of an alternative ontology to the mainstream theories. The whole point was to make you question the majority views by showing you radical alternatives. There was no talk of men being bad or women being good, only a pointing out of the global inequality (which there is) and showing how a Feminist Interpretation of the international political world might differ from a Realist/Idealist perspective. Example: Realist needs to improve his security, uses methods coated in masculine language (shows of strength, protection, intelligence) such as increasing armed forces. A Feminist might think "Well, what ways could we do this that are 'feminine'?" Such as ensuring food/fuel security and good diplomatic relations. Are these necessarily feminine attributes, or an antagonistic response to the prevailing dialogue? Different? Yes. More appropriate for certain situations? Maybe. Better? No. They might ask how the international structure would be different were it run by 90% women rather than 90% men.

I've never looked deeply into feminist theory. I can't know for sure whether I've missed anything useful by dismissing feminism. Though I also can't deny that I'm biased against feminism.
Also with the vast majority of world leaders and most politically influential people being men, even if femininist diplomacy sounded appealing, would it even be productive with men being so prominent?

Danny Ocean:

Anyway, you didn't study any Epistemology/Ontology? Critical Thinking/Logic? Any politics or what? What were the other courses you took?

I took one philosophy course but all i remember about it was that Socrates annoyed everyone by continuously asking something like "oh and why is that so?

I also took a course on roman culture and one on political parties(even though I liked the teacher, I don't remember much from the class)

So I'm pretty sure that most of my current beliefs are a result of my own research and observations + likely more exposure to conservative ideas than you, and reinforcement of such ideas by those I interact with most.

I used to be more liberal, but attribute that to myself having been more naive and lack of exposure to conservative ideas back then. I don't claim that all or most liberals are naive, just that it was true in my case.

I'm Libertarian so I daresay I'm an even bigger minority then you are Hardcore.

I want a smaller central government and more power given to the states.
I want a free market healthcare system (Quite a few members of my family are doctors or others that are involved in healthcare so that might have something to do with my opinion.) I am aware of that one Ron Paul story where his Campaign Manager was denied Healthcare because of a pre-existing condition. I actually do support any effort to make sure Insurance Companies can't do that but that's it.
I want all drugs legalized. Trust me, people who want to do drugs will do them whether they're legal or not. I've yet to meet a person who says, "Oh I want the Government to take care of me because I don't want to do drugs. MORE DRUG LAWS!" I'd rather them legalized and taxed instead of wasting money on this ridiculous War on Drugs.
I'm for Gay-Bi-Dog-Marriage.
I want the income tax gone but I realize how difficult it would be to convince people why it needs to be gone. The average American pays up to 40% of their income to the U.S. Government. A better idea would be to get rid of it and replace it with a Federal Consumption Tax. If that can't be done then at least lower the taxes down about half or at the most, 10%. The Income tax is not fair and we should stop trying to make it fair and just get rid of it.
I want the U.S. to be less involved in Foreign Policies. We spend too much money having those troops over seas and trying to protect everyone else's borders instead of our own is ridiculous. That money could better go towards National Defense.
Tax Churches.
Tax Churches.
I mean it, TAX CHURCHES! Probably will make more money than the damn Income Tax ever will.

JRslinger:

I've never looked deeply into feminist theory. I can't know for sure whether I've missed anything useful by dismissing feminism. Though I also can't deny that I'm biased against feminism.
Also with the vast majority of world leaders and most politically influential people being men, even if femininist diplomacy sounded appealing, would it even be productive with men being so prominent?

I don't know, we've not really looked into it that deeply either. As I say, it's just been framed in a way that makes you think critically of the mainstream theories. I wouldn't say I'm really that keen on feminism, either, but it's important to consider alternative paradigms and what they can bring to the table.

Danny Ocean:

Anyway, you didn't study any Epistemology/Ontology? Critical Thinking/Logic? Any politics or what? What were the other courses you took?

I took one philosophy course but all i remember about it was that Socrates annoyed everyone by continuously asking something like "oh and why is that so?

I also took a course on roman culture and one on political parties(even though I liked the teacher, I don't remember much from the class)

While Epistemology and Ontology are philosophical fields, I would have thought that science students would have had to study at least a little bit of it. I mean, how else are they supposed to fully understand the scientific methodology?

I guess it's what I thought. They're more concerned with getting the knowledge in you than getting you to question it, at least at the undergrad level.

That's not the case with the social sciences/humanities at all. It's all questioning, all the time, to the extent that you sometimes find yourself wondering what you even could believe any more.

So I'm pretty sure that most of my current beliefs are a result of my own research and observations + likely more exposure to conservative ideas than you, and reinforcement of such ideas by those I interact with most.

There's an implication there that most liberal beliefs are not the result of independent thought. While there's huge numbers of people in both groups that don't really think very hard about things, I can assure you that at university you're not told "Believe this." It's not a case that you're brainwashed In any way at all. Quite the opposite, you're encouraged to think critically. After all, even in the social sciences, everything is submitted to peer reviewed journals.1.

Hell, the only real difference between researching something yourself and studying it at university is that you have the experts and authors right there and readily available. You have more resources that are more easily accessible, and you have a basic curriculum which ensures you cover a whole range of theories rather than just locking yourself in an echo chamber for three years. Not that I want to sound antagonistic, but far too many right-wing types are like that. It seems like more liberal-types at least consider ideas fairly before dismissing them. The 'Liberals' seem more empirical. At least at university, anyway. Then again, those whose ideas aren't based on good foundations quickly get annihilated under the critical scrutiny so prevalent in the university environment.

I would say that my ideas, although not all based off my own research and the people around me, are definitely subjected to critical analysis.

But then I would say that, wouldn't I?

I used to be more liberal, but attribute that to myself having been more naive and lack of exposure to conservative ideas back then. I don't claim that all or most liberals are naive, just that it was true in my case.

See that's the funny thing. I don't know how many other "liberals" concur with me, but I tend to think roughly the same thing about most conservative ideas. I find them overly simplistic (reductionist) in almost all areas they concern themselves with. I find those ideas naive.

It's like realism in international politics. That's the one all about the Balance of Power, military strength, realpolitik etc... It makes sense, but the ontology excludes so much you've got to wonder how it's relevant at all, and to what extent it's self-fulfilling. I'd generally say I'm more of a Structural Liberal, but not violently so as Dubya was.

Interestingly, Obama's FP has been more in line with structural realist prescriptions than liberal ones.

But that's off topic.

Point is: you should really study some pol/phil some more, including the stuff you're biased against. But stick to journals rather than popular books.

1. The book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone is a classic example of this. It was published and submitted in a peer-reviewed journal. Its findings have been confirmed by the flippin' Rowntree Foundation! Still, though, popular right wing books have been produced that attempt to refute it, but not in journals, and they really fail at it. Simply because the evidence they found disagrees with the ideology, they immediately assumed it was wrong. It was taken as a political message when the authors went out of their way to not make a political point- they think they don't know enough about policy to do so. Very humble.

ServebotFrank:
The average American pays up to 40% of their income to the U.S. Government.

That is so vague! What kind of average? What's the dataset? up to?! Pays ___ of their income!? What about deductions? Capital gains? xD

And citation for that statistic right there? Clarification maybe? Data?

Here's something from the economist that contradicts you:

image

Danny Ocean:

While Epistemology and Ontology are philosophical fields, I would have thought that science students would have had to study at least a little bit of it. I mean, how else are they supposed to fully understand the scientific methodology?

Scientists are not required to learn the underlying philosophy, although optional courses on history and philosophy of science are available to them at many universities.

It's unnecessary because scientists can conduct science without knowing the philosophical underpinnings in much the same way that people can use a computer without understanding how the software is coded.

Agema:

Scientists are not required to learn the underlying philosophy, although optional courses on history and philosophy of science are available to them at many universities.

It's unnecessary because scientists can conduct science without knowing the philosophical underpinnings in much the same way that people can use a computer without understanding how the software is coded.

Oh I seeeeee...

That makes sense. Still, is there a lot of critical thinking involved or is it mostly procedural? It just seems like all the science students I know think they're much better analysts than they actually are. I realise this is anecdotal, and they're all still lovely, curious, and intelligent people.

Danny Ocean:

Agema:

Scientists are not required to learn the underlying philosophy, although optional courses on history and philosophy of science are available to them at many universities.

It's unnecessary because scientists can conduct science without knowing the philosophical underpinnings in much the same way that people can use a computer without understanding how the software is coded.

Oh I seeeeee...

That makes sense. Still, is there a lot of critical thinking involved or is it mostly procedural? It just seems like all the science students I know think they're much better analysts than they actually are. I realise this is anecdotal, and they're all still lovely, curious, and intelligent people.

It depends. The thing is that with science you need a basis. You simply can't question everything all the time because for a lot of fields you need to accept a lot as fact to go on. This is not to say no scientist wouldn't start questioning basic principles. Heck i noticed myself that i had to reject many basic formulas under certain circumstances because they don't always apply. (sometimes just slightly changing them was enough, sometimes not) This is not the kind of things the scientific community would have realized if they'd just blindly accept theories.

So what you may most likely notice is that scientists who study a certain field will accept premises which belong to other fields and are necessary to expand his own field while questioning "facts" that belong to his field.

Science is just too complex and difficult to continuously question everything.

generals3:

Science is just too complex and difficult to continuously question everything.

Oh no no no, I don't mean to emphasis the obtuse questioning of everything as some kind of a virtue. What I mean is a more modest knowledge of the basic mechanics and limitations of the theories used. Not just the maths, but like I say, the epistemology and ontology. The theory behind the theories of science is actually pretty simple, from what I've seen so far, but so few seem to know it.

As an example: the empirical view of science is so ingrained in one particular scientist friend of mine that he doesn't even consider the existence of temporal entities or social facts. He is quite a stubborn friend, to be fair, but you get the idea.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked