College grads agree w/ Liberals, while High School dropouts agree w/ Conservatives.

[chaz345]

I personally have no issue with that. If results are not met based on the limited pool of individuals although the opportunity is there, I would rather that then the opposite where the opportunity itself were limited. It kind of works itself out.

The problem is that the lack of equal results is being used to say that there is a problem on the opportunity side of the equation. We've seen cases where the physical performance standards in jobs where physical performance is critical to your own safety, the safety of your coworkers and the safety of those you are serving have been lowered in order for more women to be able to qualify. That's a problem unless the physical performance standards were unnecessarily high in the first place.

 

[chaz345]

Bill Clinton wasn't a liberal, and to be honest, he was probably the most moderate President since I've been alive.

On most things he was undeniably somewhat left of center though.

 

[JoyJuice]

The problem is that the lack of equal results is being used to say that there is a problem on the opportunity side of the equation. We've seen cases where the physical performance standards in jobs where physical performance is critical to your own safety, the safety of your coworkers and the safety of those you are serving have been lowered in order for more women to be able to qualify. That's a problem unless the physical performance standards were unnecessarily high in the first place.

I understand what you're saying but given the totality of the employment field in workerville USA, how pervasive is phyiscal ability in a niche job field skewing results when it comes to employment on the national level?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

On most things he was undeniably somewhat left of center though.

Like what?

 

[Vene]

One of the main things that makes education important is that it increases one's ability to make money and support one's self. Education strictly for it's own sake is pointless.

Wow, that is a completely different attitude than what I have. I am obsessed with learning and knowing more. You never know when a piece of esoteric knowledge can be useful.

 

[chaz345]

Wow, that is a completely different attitude than what I have. I am obsessed with learning and knowing more. You never know when a piece of esoteric knowledge can be useful.

Believe me I've got a pretty vast storehouse of esoteric information tucked away in the corners of my mind too. But it didn't get there from the formal education system. And you'll note that I didn't say that education was not useful, I said that education just for the sake of education is not useful. How many professional students have ever amounted to anything great or made great contributions to humankind? Obviously most of the great minds throughout history never stopped learning, but much of their learning occurred long after they were done with formal education.

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

One of the main things that makes education important is that it increases one's ability to make money and support one's self. Education strictly for it's own sake is pointless.

As someone studying for a degree that will probably never make me much money I have to disagree completly. Education is not just about money. It is about knowledge. It is about the betterment of yourself and society.

 

[chaz345]

Like what?

Social spending.
Nearly all of the typical hotbutton social issues.

 

[chaz345]

I understand what you're saying but given the totality of the employment field in workerville USA, how pervasive is phyiscal ability in a niche job field skewing results when it comes to employment on the national level?

What results are there that suggest that there isn't already a level playing field when it comes to gender?

I guess what I'm getting at in a broader sense is that whenever there is a gender disparity(or race disparity) in a particular field, lack of opportunity is nearly always cited as the main reason and then of course something has to be done to fix it. The problem is that you can lead a horse to water(opportunity) but you can't make them drink(take the opportunity and make the most of it).

 

[chaz345]

As someone studying for a degree that will probably never make me much money I have to disagree completly. Education is not just about money. It is about knowledge. It is about the betterment of yourself and society.

How can you better society if you are just barely scraping by and become dependent on the system for your survival? Knowledge alone does nothing to better society.


And without highly educated and highly paid professionals like doctors and engineers, who's going to pay for all the social programs?

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

How can you better society if you are just barely scraping by and become dependent on the system for your survival? Knowledge alone does nothing to better society.


And without highly educated and highly paid professionals like doctors and engineers, who's going to pay for all the social programs?

Many people better society without making much money: teachers, police, firemen, artists, musicians, writers. Pay is not representative of the importance to society. Sports stars get paid millions but I would say teachers are more important to society.

 

[BlueAfgani]

You're leaving off a great deal of COnservative philosopy, especially the social issues and the desire to make Christianity the primary force guiding the country.

That's the extreme right. And just because someone doesn't support gay marriage and wants Roe V Wade overturned doesn't make them a Christian extremist. I for one support gay marriage and am pro-choice and lean conservative because liberals these days are leaning moe and more to the left. The campaign is perfect example. The Candidate all have some pretty nutty left wing positions. I don't think any of them could qualify as a moderate without doing some major flip flopping, like Clinton. The Reps are far more in line with moderate views than the dems, though each one of them has their problems, too.

You have a point with all of these issues that you mention, and they are good on paper. But, in the real world, these ideals do not work. Lower taxes and get rid of the social programs? Great idea! Except that hurts our citizens and leaves a great many of them without a way to live, which then causes crime and hurts us even more than the higher taxes.

Federal social programs should be done away with. Social welfare programs should be done at the state and county levels, as each state is better qualified to handle the needs of it's citizens more effectively.

Liberals and Conservatives both believe in a strong military, while Conservatives have proven over the last few years, that they are not able to use the military correctly, and also that their "support" of military actions against other countries, hurts our national security. So, what you have here, is two groups that believe the same thing about the military, just believe in different ways of using it. To me, if the Bush administration is a Conservative example of how to keep our country safe and use our military, then Conservatives are not to be trusted with the issue, because they have failed and are continuing to fail.

What in the hell are you talking about? Have we been attacked since 9-11? No. Dislike Bush all you want, but at least recognize the man successes, as few as they may be. Though I can think of a good many times when America and American intrests were hit by terrorists and we did nothing. Don't tell me about liberal respect for the military. The little raft the carried the bomb the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen sailed right into the boat unchalleged. Why? Did they not have guns? Sure did. Were they manned? Sure were. Hmm..., were they loaded? NO! Because of a beaurocratic rule from a beaurocratic military run by a beaurocratic government with a horny old dem at the chair.

It needs to be pointed out that college teaches people to be independant, and also teaches that America was founded on freedom. Both of these things go against Conservative ideals.

No, they only go against your convoluted beliefs of what conservative ideals are.

Liberals want to govern with freedom for all, so that our laws leave people to live out their morals and values, for the most part, except for the bare limit (murder... and such).Abortion, gay marriage, drugs, every single law allows for the most freedom, so that people aren't forced to live against their morality.

Bare limit? Like not being able to smoke in your home if you happen to live in an apartment, as is being done in a locality in California. How about telling people what to eat and how to live a heathly, and now a "Green" lifestyle. After all, since the government is going to pay all your bills, they oughta have some say in your behavior since it's something we all have to pay for. Nothing from the government is 'free". There's a movement in some city, in California of course, that is wanting to ban fireplaces because they are bad for the enviroment. Course these people can't pay for natural gas and electricity to heat their homes. The reason the wildfires were so bad over there and claimed so many houses is because of stupid enviromental regulations that stopped people from creating firebreaks, and thinning some of the forests. Cali is a liberal playground, and it is the last state I would want to live in. It is the least free state I could live in. That tells me all I need to know.

This is completely opposed to the Conservative way of governing, which isn't really American, because they try and pass laws so that everyone must fall in line with their morals and values. This is not the principles that America was founded upon, and once leaving college, people realize thisIt's easy for Conservatives to convince uneducated people that our country was founded on Christian principles, and that our founders wanted America to be a Christian nation whose laws coincide with the bible, because they don't know any better. But, once you go to college and learn the truth, you see that Conservatives main premises are wrong, and that the way they govern is in direct conflict with the ideals of the nation.

Right, because the Founding Fathers dreamed of a socialist state that charges insanely high income taxes, and then take 50% of all you earn when you die. That penalizes people who do not live "green", and live healthy. A country in which everyone is dependant upon the government for everything so that no one will be responsible for themselves, so that no one will be truely indepentant, and so we'll all suck off the government teet, and we'll give up our guns freely and give the government absolute power over us because we'll buy the lie that the police will save us when in truth, the police are going to be too busy protecting the good side of town because you ain't got the money to hire more cops because it's all going to health care because the govenment is paying prices for health care that will make your nose bleed because they is no free market system for healthcare.

 

[Vene]

Believe me I've got a pretty vast storehouse of esoteric information tucked away in the corners of my mind too. But it didn't get there from the formal education system. And you'll note that I didn't say that education was not useful, I said that education just for the sake of education is not useful. How many professional students have ever amounted to anything great or made great contributions to humankind? Obviously most of the great minds throughout history never stopped learning, but much of their learning occurred long after they were done with formal education.

I see a little about what you're talking about now. Of course learning shouldn't quit after obtaining a degree.

It reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote.

'Educational' refers to the process, not the object. Although, come to think of it, some of
my teachers could easily have been replaced by a cheeseburger.

 

[chaz345]

Many people better society without making much money: teachers, police, firemen, artists, musicians, writers. Pay is not representative of the importance to society. Sports stars get paid millions but I would say teachers are more important to society.

I didn't say that pay alone was what determined value to society. I said that knowledge alone is not, by itself, an indicator of value to society. Knoweledge, just for the sake of amassing more knoweledge has practically zero value to society. But on the other hand many of the fields you just mention require only a high school education or nothing more than a 2 year associates degree from a community college.

And like I said, without those who go out and amass a large quantity of knowledge with the specific purpose of making a pile of money, who's taxes are going to support all of the social programs that the highly valuable liberal thinkers dream up?

 

[chaz345]

I see a little about what you're talking about now. Of course learning shouldn't quit after obtaining a degree.

It reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote.

Actually I wasn't really originally talking about the difference between practical learning versus formal education but it is a very valid distinction. Take a 22 year old person who just graduated from college and another who has been busy living life and learning how the real world works for the last 4 years since highschool and tell me which one is more likely to be able to deal with real world, actual nuts and bolts of living. Now take a 30 year old post doctorate "professional student" and compare them to a 30 year old who graduated high school and maybe spent a couple of years on an AA degree at a community college. Who is more likely to be better equipped to live life in the real world?

For clarity, I'm not knocking formal education. I'm just saying that formal education strictly for the sake of amassing more knowledge has little value to anyone. It's what you do with the knoweledge that you have that makes far more difference than how much knoweledge you have.

 

[I Just Believe In Me]

I didn't say that pay alone was what determined value to society. I said that knowledge alone is not, by itself, an indicator of value to society. Knoweledge, just for the sake of amassing more knoweledge has practically zero value to society. But on the other hand many of the fields you just mention require only a high school education or nothing more than a 2 year associates degree from a community college.

And like I said, without those who go out and amass a large quantity of knowledge with the specific purpose of making a pile of money, who's taxes are going to support all of the social programs that the highly valuable liberal thinkers dream up?

I am not trying to undercut fields of study in which people make money. These are important. But the value of knowledge is about more than money. Knowledge for knowledge sake is very important. I will never make money for having read Catch-22 or Johnny Got His Gun. But both were enjoyable (highly recommend everyone read them) and both pass on important knowledge.

 

[chaz345]

I am not trying to undercut fields of study in which people make money. These are important. But the value of knowledge is about more than money. Knowledge for knowledge sake is very important. I will never make money for having read Catch-22 or Johnny Got His Gun. But both were enjoyable (highly recommend everyone read them) and both pass on important knowledge.

But the knowledge, by itself, is virtually worthless, in any sense of the word you want to use. What makes a difference, either in the individual or to society is what one does with the knowledge. And by what one does with the knowledge, I'm not talking just about making money. But the mere fact that you have a particular piece of knowledge does yourself, and society absolutely zero good. If/when and how you apply that knowledge to a particular circumstance is when it has value.

 

[flicka]

One of the main things that makes education important is that it increases one's ability to make money and support one's self. Education strictly for it's own sake is pointless.

I want to scream. I really really do.

 

[Vene]

For clarity, I'm not knocking formal education. I'm just saying that formal education strictly for the sake of amassing more knowledge has little value to anyone. It's what you do with the knoweledge that you have that makes far more difference than how much knoweledge you have.

But, you do knock it. You did so after you posted this. (And I have to point out the irony of you misspelling "knowledge")

But the knowledge, by itself, is virtually worthless, in any sense of the word you want to use. What makes a difference, either in the individual or to society is what one does with the knowledge. And by what one does with the knowledge, I'm not talking just about making money. But the mere fact that you have a particular piece of knowledge does yourself, and society absolutely zero good. If/when and how you apply that knowledge to a particular circumstance is when it has value.

 

[flicka]

As someone who goes to college and reads and studies purely for the sake of learning (I'm a SAHM and have no plans to work for pay) it's hard to imagine people who only want to learn a skill so they can make money without ever learning for the sake of gaining knowledge. I always assumed only mentally deficient folks would be that way, so this thread has eye opening.

What would also be eye opening is what people think "liberal" means. Reading through this thread leads me to believe there isn't one definition at all and that people usually just slap that label on something they personally don't agree with or know anything about.