Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Facebook is supposed to be fun, so I keep it light. If someone posts stuff repeatedly that offends me (left, right, political, religious, NSFW pictures, stupid drama... doesn't matter) then I hide them. No big deal, they can post whatever they want. But I don't have to be a martyr and continually put up with stuff that I fined really disagreeable gunking up my stream just to prove a point to ... who? Who cares?
Seriously, is there some kind of award that I'm supposed to be competing for where I continually put up with loud, antagonistic postings and opinions deeply contrary to my own??? That makes no sense.
As far as real life goes, I have many friends who hold political and religious views very different then my own. It's only ever a problem if the person (either side) continually proselytizes those views. If you are actually friends then you know the stuff that truly rubs each other the wrong way and you don't bring it up. And if you DO continually bring up views/opinions that you know offend your friends then you are kind of a dick and you aren't going to keep friends very long.
This thread is dedicated to the closed conservative information loop.
The pew study doesn't show that conservatives are more open minded or willing to listen to differing political viewpoints.
In fact conservatives are the least likely to both have friends with opposing viewpoints or to watch media with opposing viewpoints.
The Pew Study shows that conservatives are distrusting of nearly all media. Shows that conservstives mostly listen to ONE news network fox.
Also, the Pew study also shows that conservatives are less likely to have friends who don't agree with them ideologically.
So the reason liberals are more likely to block someone of a differing political opinion than conservatives is because liberals are more likely to be friends with and get political messages from people they don't agree with, while conservstives are basically cocooned off in their Fox News and Rush Limbaugh feed back loop.
While only a quarter (25%) of respondents with mixed ideological views say most of their close friends share their own political views, that is true of roughly half (52%) of consistent liberals and two- thirds (66%) of consistent conservatives. Social Media: Conservatives More Likely to Have Like-Minded Friends
In the growing social media space, most users encounter a mix of political views. But consistent conservatives are twice as likely as the typical Facebook user to see political opinions on Facebook that are mostly in line with their own views (47% vs. 23%)
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,571 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
This thread is dedicated to the closed conservative information loop.
The pew study doesn't show that conservatives are more open minded or willing to listen to differing political viewpoints.
In fact conservatives are the least likely to both have friends with opposing viewpoints or to watch media with opposing viewpoints.
The Pew Study shows that conservatives are distrusting of nearly all media. Shows that conservstives mostly listen to ONE news network fox.
Also, the Pew study also shows that conservatives are less likely to have friends who don't agree with them ideologically.
So the reason liberals are more likely to block someone of a differing political opinion than conservatives is because liberals are more likely to be friends with and get political messages from people they don't agree with, while conservstives are basically cocooned off in their Fox News and Rush Limbaugh feed back loop.
While only a quarter (25%) of respondents with mixed ideological views say most of their close friends share their own political views, that is true of roughly half (52%) of consistent liberals and two- thirds (66%) of consistent conservatives. Social Media: Conservatives More Likely to Have Like-Minded Friends
In the growing social media space, most users encounter a mix of political views. But consistent conservatives are twice as likely as the typical Facebook user to see political opinions on Facebook that are mostly in line with their own views (47% vs. 23%)
people pointed the above out earlier in this thread.
Conservatives either didnt listen or
Dont understand the context of what they are quoting, based on the OP, i would say both.
This thread is dedicated to the closed conservative information loop.
The pew study doesn't show that conservatives are more open minded or willing to listen to differing political viewpoints.
In fact conservatives are the least likely to both have friends with opposing viewpoints or to watch media with opposing viewpoints.
The Pew Study shows that conservatives are distrusting of nearly all media. Shows that conservstives mostly listen to ONE news network fox.
Also, the Pew study also shows that conservatives are less likely to have friends who don't agree with them ideologically.
So the reason liberals are more likely to block someone of a differing political opinion than conservatives is because liberals are more likely to be friends with and get political messages from people they don't agree with, while conservstives are basically cocooned off in their Fox News and Rush Limbaugh feed back loop.
While only a quarter (25%) of respondents with mixed ideological views say most of their close friends share their own political views, that is true of roughly half (52%) of consistent liberals and two- thirds (66%) of consistent conservatives. Social Media: Conservatives More Likely to Have Like-Minded Friends
In the growing social media space, most users encounter a mix of political views. But consistent conservatives are twice as likely as the typical Facebook user to see political opinions on Facebook that are mostly in line with their own views (47% vs. 23%)
Show me the conservative pundit or politician who argues the nonsense of higher marginal rates with a race based counter argument. Most of the time, the rebuttal is simply "uhm yeah, not true, check the Laffer Curve and Hausers Law for more on that. And the preponderance of evidence suggests that the marginal rates going higher actually inhibits economic growth at the cost of social satisfaction."
But if you have even one example of a conservative arguing that higher marginal rates are bad because of black people taking mah money, then link it up sport.
You do realize that you're proving my earlier point, right? When challenged, liberals typically resort to emotion. Your reply is of the standard liberal form "oh yeah, well conservatives are racist!" No proof, just the claim. Standard emotional response. Am I defriended?
Are you honestly going to insist you've never heard the term "welfare queen"? Using thinly-veiled racism to argue against government spending has been the cornerstone of Republican policy for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Um... NO. Even Obama's own former chief economic advisor, Christina Romer, knew better than that, and quit Obama's Admin to go back to reality.
Romer's research found that for every 1% increase in the tax rate, GDP declined by anywhere from 2.5-3%, and that "... stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment."
If you spend increased tax revenue on investments, then how can it decrease overall investment? Well, whatever, the point wasn't to derail the thread, it was to point out that you aren't the only one who can phrase arguments from the other side in a childish way and strawman them as overly emotional. Maybe sticking to the same examples will be clearer:
Conservative - Poor people are ferals who deserve poor wages!
Liberal - Driving down wages results in a race to the bottom, slack demand and an economy vulnerable to shocks. Wage disparities are usually driven by differences in leverage that have no correlation to social good, rather than any notion of deservedness.
Conservative - Government stealing money oppresive Randian nightmare!
Liberal - Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
Conservative - Women who use birth control are sluts!
Liberal - Women should have equal access to necessary healthcare.
Are you honestly going to insist you've never heard the term "welfare queen"? Using thinly-veiled racism to argue against government spending has been the cornerstone of Republican policy for decades.
Show me the policy, show me the argument where race is specifically injected into an argument against higher marginal rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
If you spend increased tax revenue on investments, then how can it decrease overall investment? Well, whatever, the point wasn't to derail the thread, it was to point out that you aren't the only one who can phrase arguments from the other side in a childish way and strawman them as overly emotional. Maybe sticking to the same examples will be clearer:
Conservative - Poor people are ferals who deserve poor wages!
Liberal - Driving down wages results in a race to the bottom, slack demand and an economy vulnerable to shocks. Wage disparities are usually driven by differences in leverage that have no correlation to social good, rather than any notion of deservedness.
Show me the conservative pundit or politician who argues that poor people are feral and deserve low wages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Conservative - Government stealing money oppresive Randian nightmare!
Liberal - Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.
Conservatives argue that about redistribution, not all taxes. Your example is a great one that shows how liberals are all or nothing emotional when any tax is argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Conservative - Women who use birth control are sluts!
Liberal - Women should have equal access to necessary healthcare.
Ah, the "Rush said something near this, so I will distill it down to the worst out of context parsing and attribute it to every conservative" argument. Straw man much? And fwiw, the entire quote from Rush, with context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
"Your daughter ... testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she wants President Obama to provide them, or the Pope. What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a ****, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
That WAS Fluke's argument. She has so much sex that she cannot afford her own contraception, and that not forcing others to subsidize it is tantamount to restricting her from having sex. Read her testimony before the committee. Everybody flipped on Rush so hard they forgot that FLuke was whining that because she has so much sex, birth control costs exceed her financial wherewithal. According to her own words, she's definitely promiscuous, and there is a fitting pejorative for promiscuity.
But again, you are proving my point. The more I ask for evidence, the more angry and emotional you get. You cannot find an example of any conservative arguing against higher marginal rates with racism as their basis, so you deflect with even more emotion and some gender/class/misogyny straw men.
If you spend increased tax revenue on investments, then how can it decrease overall investment?
It decreases it by the cost of the corresponding government employees' salaries and benefits. Money doesn't invest itself. Someone has to direct that investment. It could be the earner/taxpayer, thus eliminating the expense of the government employee middlemen. That's why tax increases hurt GDP growth.
FTA:By contrast, those with consistently liberal views: Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
One reason I don't talk politics with my liberal friends and coworkers.
This is why I don't allow liberals in my house. They are a pain in the a*s and will single handedly ruin any social event. They just don't know when to shut up.
Newsflash- political discussions are not intended for family get togethers or social events. Want to be a bore and a royal pain in the a*s? Start political discussions on these occasions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
