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.
"Gordon Gauchat of the University of North Carolina published these findings in the forthcoming issue of the American Sociological Review. He looked back at data from 1974 through 2010, and found that trust in science was relatively stable over that 36-year period, except among self-identified conservatives. While conservatives started in 1974 as the group that trusted science most (compared to self-identified liberals and moderates), they have now dropped to the bottom of the ranking."
So in response to the poll which shows Democrats are Communists, ironically at a higher percentage that the ridiculous one you keep quoting, you've got nothing?
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,462,476 times
Reputation: 6670
^ ^ Enter "Exhibit A"…. anti-science and anti-reason, a Birther wingnut who's all-ideology, all of the time. What a perfect illustration of the insanity cited in the OP, and of all the other bat-sh*t crazies who've hi-jacked the once great party of Lincoln.
^ ^ Enter "Exhibit A"…. anti-science and anti-reason, a Birther wingnut who's all-ideology, all of the time. What a perfect illustration of the insanity cited in the OP, and of all the other bat-sh*t crazies who've hi-jacked the once great party of Lincoln.
How the mighty have fallen…
Any group will have fringes that may appear crazy to people outside that group with completely different worldviews. In responding only to those posters who you find fit your preconceived notion of crazy GOP'ers, you simply provide the impartial with ample evidence of your own narrow view of the world.
2) If you make something FREE and no restrictions common sense is the
numbers will go up not down.
Wrong. If they were giving out free Ebola, people wouldn't be lining up to get it.
Abortion isn't something that women aspire to.
Our abortion rates are lower due to comprehensive sex ed, and the handing out of condoms like candy in high schools.
We don't preach BS like "abstinence only" or have those ridiculous chastity balls with purity rings.
Sex is a natural biological function and we deal with it accordingly.
^ ^ Enter "Exhibit A"…. anti-science and anti-reason, a Birther wingnut who's all-ideology, all of the time. What a perfect illustration of the insanity cited in the OP, and of all the other bat-sh*t crazies who've hi-jacked the once great party of Lincoln.
How the mighty have fallen…
Thank you for showing the world how much of a pos view this whole thread was, considering I'm not a birther..
When you make believe others think something they dont, your opinion holds absolutely no relevance.
Congragulations on the wonderful new low standards you set for Democrats.
I am inclined to agree, but I always feel there is hope.
I have argued points from both parties, equally and just as passionate as I do others.
What I don't like is the making crap up about other parties. "Obama/The Republicans are trying to destroy this country on purpose"
No, thats just stupid.
There is still hope but time is running out and if we do not change the way Politics in America runs then we are done as the great experiment. We have a mountain of issues that must be addressed, if Politicians only spend their time posturing and not doing then nothing will improve and I see it we are already on the long spiral down to become just another chapter in history. If things do not change soon we will look back on these days as the good old days, and that says a lot.
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear, or perhaps your interpretation is too colored by your own lack of impartiality.
No different from your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
In mentioning that the thoughtful individuals amongst the GOP included a number of libertarians, the point was that the GOP is not in full dogmatic lockstep.
I doubt anyone was confused about what your point was. I suppose, based on the logic you used to come up with this rejoinder, that we can say that your reply here shows that you failed to understand the point I made, about all the reasonable voices of conservatism have been chased from positions of power by today's petulantly avaricious GOP leadership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
There are individuals, especially amongst columnists...
So you really didn't understand what you replied to.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Yes, well I believe you meant more vulnerable, not less.
Yes. I was deciding whether "more vulnerable" or "less fortunate" communicated the thought better and made an error in my wording.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
However, you are showing your spots quite clearly in stating that one party is "looking for ways to double economic injustice for the second time in as many generations". You are not impartial.
I'm no less impartial than you are by disagreeing. I think that's the problem you have: You think that supporting a cold, calculating, callous view is somehow impartial. It isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
The conservatives and libertarians are not opposed to compassionate regard for any group in society.
Yet they more often than not support candidates of a political party that is. I didn't say that they were rational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
They simply do not think that it should be the responsibility of government to dictate that this regard be felt by all citizens.
This isn't about what regard should be "felt by all citizens" but rather what regard should be practiced, and moreover what regard should be practiced by society. You can be as uncaring and antisocial as you wish, but when you seek to imprint society with that uncaring and antisocial corruption, that's condemnable, even if it makes some right-wingers feel bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
They do not argue for complete abolishment of welfare programs - just that those programs be designed in such a way as to prevent abuse by the able bodied who could support themselves if they chose to do so.
Bull. If they really supported a caring and compassionate society, then they'd propose replacements to those programs that they feel are inadequate with programs that they have clearly demonstrated shall be superior in both efficacy and efficiency. They don't, not because they don't have a chance, but because you've been deceived about their collective intention, which is quite the opposite of what you claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
It has nothing to do with the less fortunate, that is your hobby horse, not mine.
Indeed. One of the right-wing's hallmarks is callous disregard for the less fortunate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
I find you to be very arrogant
I find you to be very rude.
I find your perspectives to be immorally self-serving and callous.
I doubt anyone was confused about what your point was. I suppose, based on the logic you used to come up with this rejoinder, that we can say that your reply here shows that you failed to understand the point I made, about all the reasonable voices of conservatism have been chased from positions of power by today's petulantly avaricious GOP leadership.
Then obviously you have a skewed view of conservatives at large, I can only suppose that you get this skew through your choice of news sources. Conservatives in positions of power have a different view of how to bring about prosperity than liberals in positions of power, nothing more than that. You state your interpretation of their motivations as if it were fact, which it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I'm no less impartial than you are by disagreeing. I think that's the problem you have: You think that supporting a cold, calculating, callous view is somehow impartial. It isn't.
Again, you tell me what I think, rather than what you suppose I think. This is why you are not an impartial thinker. This is why you cannot see that some understand the practical limitations of institutional, bureaucratic compassion and instead characterize that understanding as "cold, calculating, callous"
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Yet they more often than not support candidates of a political party that is. I didn't say that they were rational.
The candidates a party puts forward are always one of it's weakest links. Those candidates are human beings, prone to the same failings and errors in judgement that we all are. Liberals don't exactly put forward stellar human beings either, it is an unfortunate trait of many who pursue political power that they seem to be rather weak characters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
This isn't about what regard should be "felt by all citizens" but rather what regard should be practiced, and moreover what regard should be practiced by society. You can be as uncaring and antisocial as you wish, but when you seek to imprint society with that uncaring and antisocial corruption, that's condemnable, even if it makes some right-wingers feel bad.
Yes, but I did not say that it should not be felt or practiced by a society - I said that conservatives did not think it was government's role to enforce that practice (since that is the word you prefer). Government must always be impartial, which requires a certain lack of care if you like.
The role of teaching society to practice compassion belongs to the citizens themselves - as parents, as teachers, as artists, and in their churches should they choose to participate in religion, even just as friends and companions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Bull. If they really supported a caring and compassionate society, then they'd propose replacements to those programs that they feel are inadequate with programs that they have clearly demonstrated shall be superior in both efficacy and efficiency. They don't, not because they don't have a chance, but because you've been deceived about their collective intention, which is quite the opposite of what you claim.
Paul Ryan has proposed welfare reform this year, and SS reform a couple years ago. I know you guys don't like him much, but Ron Wyden seemed to think his Medicare reform ideas had merit. Going further back, the GOP cooperated with President Clinton on welfare reform - very good reforms that made the program what it was meant to be - help for those who needed it rather than a permanent handout.
You may not like Ryan's ideas of reform, for whatever reasons you choose. But you cannot read through them and argue that they are not superior in efficacy and efficiency - his intent in proposing these reforms is to improve both to the point where the programs can continue without continual fights over increasing funding for them.
I believe you are the one who has been mislead about the intention of these and other entitlement reforms. Now if you want to counter with Bush's SS privatization idea, I will agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Indeed. One of the right-wing's hallmarks is callous disregard for the less fortunate.
Again, nothing more than your opinion put forward as fact. I will speculate that you don't personally know any conservatives well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I find you to be very rude.
I find your perspectives to be immorally self-serving and callous.
So I guess we're even.
I am sorry to hear that, I did not intend to be rude so much as clear. I did lose my temper somewhat, and for that I apologize.
I would say my perspectives are practical. That you see them as immorally self-serving and callous leads me to suppose that your perspectives are fundamentally impractical.
It is pointless for you to try to imply that your comments are impartial when they're so clearly biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Then obviously you have a skewed view of conservatives at large
No: The right-wing leadership is what it is. You cannot just wish away the realities that make you uncomfortable by claiming that there are leaders who embody the perspectives of Eisenhower when there are not. Even though at ruins your one-sided narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
I can only suppose that you get this skew through your choice of news sources.
No different from how you get your skew, no doubt. Again you try to use a ridiculous claim of objectivity to try to deceive yourself into thinking you're unbiased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
Again, you tell me what I think, rather than what you suppose I think.
So what you're saying here is that you don't think your view is impartial. Thanks for clearing that up. You cannot have it both ways and rationalizing the corrupt nature of what you support by claiming it is misunderstood is childish. It is time for you to stand up and stand behind what you believe instead of trying to hide its true nature, even from yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
I would say my perspectives are practical.
As I would say that my perspectives are moral. If you were "impartial" then you'd allow those self-characterizations to both stand. But I am sure you won't. I'm sure that you'll refuse to accept the implicit condemnation.
No different from how you get your skew, no doubt. Again you try to use a ridiculous claim of objectivity to try to deceive yourself into thinking you're unbiased.
No one is unbiased. A person can be objective in spite of that, or attempt to be objective, by making allowances knowing that they themselves have a bias. This is just trying to see the world as others see it rather than assuming that one's own view is the only correct one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
So what you're saying here is that you don't think your view is impartial. Thanks for clearing that up. You cannot have it both ways and rationalizing the corrupt nature of what you support by claiming it is misunderstood is childish. It is time for you to stand up and stand behind what you believe instead of trying to hide its true nature, even from yourself.
Of course I'm not impartial, no one is. I just claim to be aware of my lack of impartiality, and I claim you are not, evidenced by the things you say and the way you say them.
I am aware that the GOP is no purer or less corrupt than the Democrats - I support them because I find their ideas on how to govern to be marginally less moronic that those of the Democrats. Neither party is good at it however, both abuse power the moment temptation comes around, both waste money as if they didn't have to go out and earn more, and both parties should be kept from holding both the legislative and executive branches of government at the same time if at all possible.
When I claim that the GOP position on something is misunderstood, I am claiming that the things you've trotted out as flaws in it are not what I see as flaws. If you want to come up with the actual flaws in any of their positions, I will certainly acknowledge them, because it would indeed be childish not to do so. I may not be inclined to help you out in finding them, but they are there if you look for them.
That you are consistently coming up with the stock liberal perspective is what tells me that you don't really understand the GOP's perspective. The flaws in it are tolerably obvious, and you keep missing them in favor of the ones that MSNBC told you about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
As I would say that my perspectives are moral. If you were "impartial" then you'd allow those self-characterizations to both stand. But I am sure you won't. I'm sure that you'll refuse to accept the implicit condemnation.
I have no problem with your saying that your perspectives are moral, and if you like even more moral than my own since I am willing to support a party that I find to be wholly unsuited to governing but still better than the alternative. You could argue that such a compromise of principles is immoral (however I wouldn't recommend it, because there is a flaw in that argument that I would surely pounce upon ). I would disagree if you claimed that compromise were impractical.
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.
). I would disagree if you claimed that compromise were impractical.
