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

[Vene]

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.

I tend to use one along these lines.
Dictionary link

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I would agree with the webster definition, and I also agree that "liberal" has become a loose term used by conservatives to mean "anything done by someone politically that I disagree with and/or find stupid" and has also been given connotations of being unchristian. Sad how words are misused.

 

[chaz345]

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

I said nothing negative about formal education. I am however being negative about the idea that one can be of value to society simply by amassing knowledge and never doing anything with it other that amassing more knowledge.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I think its sad to judge things only on whether they help you produce in the economy. Bettering yourself as a person, in your dealings with other people, in your spiritual and personal growth, these things are important. I don't buy into the idea that the measure of your life's worth is how "successful" you were at producing and amassing wealth.

 

[chaz345]

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.

You are looking only at the two extremes of a spectrum, neither one of which I'm advocating. But the first, learning just to acquire a marketable skill, is more useful in a practical sense that learning ONLY for the sake of learning. I'm not saying that one must have a specific purpose in mind in advance for the knowledge that they are acquiring. I'm just saying that just acquiring knowledge, if nothing is ever done with it, is not of real tangible value to anyone.

 

[chaz345]

I think its sad to judge things only on whether they help you produce in the economy. Bettering yourself as a person, in your dealings with other people, in your spiritual and personal growth, these things are important. I don't buy into the idea that the measure of your life's worth is how "successful" you were at producing and amassing wealth.

That's not what I'm saying either. But you have just mentioned practical applications that give the knowledge value. All I'm saying is that knowledge that is not applied in any way, wether it be in earning money, or in how you deal with other people, or whatever is of no value. Knowledge that is not used is essentially meaningless.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

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

He reformed welfare and signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Neither of these are "liberal". In fact, DADT is sort of right wing. He also signed DOMA.

Everything he did seemed to be moderate. Right in line with the middle of the country.

 

[Ryal Kane]

He reformed welfare and signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Neither of these are "liberal". In fact, DADT is sort of right wing. He also signed DOMA.

Everything he did seemed to be moderate. Right in line with the middle of the country.

A lot of people don't realize that America's Left wing is actually right wing in perspective to the rest of the world. The policies of the democrats would places them about centre right on the political compass.

I got this pic from here.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

 

[Maren]

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.

Just like much of what is criticized about "liberals" on this board is scapegoating of extreme individuals or the extreme left.

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.

Do you have evidence that the liberals are actually leaning more left? Could it not be that it only appears that way to you because the extreme right is leaning further and further right?

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. 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.

I'll agree that the Republicans are becoming more and more federalist but not necessarily liberal -- that is one of the problems with the term, it is so overused that it really has no meaning any more. And interesting that it is largely the "extreme right" you mentioned above that is pushing for national laws to push the social issues they care about on all states.

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.

This is only true if you ignore the attacks on the US overseas -- there have been far more of these under Bush than any other president precisely because of the "mission accomplished" war. But since you want to ignore the attacks outside of the US (like the USS Cole), prior to 9/11 the previous attack was 8 years before when there was an attempted bombing of the World Trade Center -- so actually Bush's record is no better than Clinton's that way. Also, Clinton's responses to overseas terrorist attacks were little different than Reagan's (shelling Lebanon by a battleship, bombing a building in Libya, etc.).

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.

I'd really like to see evidence of this. In fact, I believe many of the Rules of Engagement came out of conservatives in the Pentagon and the Reagan administration after the shooting down of Iraq Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes.

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

Aren't you the one that above complained about the person was using "extreme right" ideals to paint the entire right. When you talk about a town in California doing this or that, it would appear you are using the same tactics.

As for not allowing one to smoke in their own home because of the health problems it can cause, how is that different from Conservatives that continue to support marijuana laws that prevent people from legally smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home? In fact, from what I've seen Conservatives often are just as much anti-smoking as liberals.

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.

Actually, this is another one I find false. For example, in this case most of the homes were in the most conservative areas of California. My experience is that it is these rich, conservative homeowners that are most likely to object to firebreaks because the ruin the view from their homes and might lower their property values. I've even seen similar laws passed in one of the most conservative states for this very reason.

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. 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.

But aren't you the one who was stating above that federal programs should be done away with? As a supporter for state rights, should not the citizens of California be allowed to pass whatever laws they wish and if you don't like them, don't move there? Or are you saying that states should only have freedom to pass laws as long as they agree with what you believe?

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.

Interesting rant. Yet, while if things are done wrong it might happen, Europe appears to be proof that if more liberal policies are put in place (such as health care and social programs) that this "horror story" of yours is nothing more than a horror story to scare children. The fact is, Western European economies are at least as healthy as ours and statistics indicate they have less crime, a better quality of life, and live healthier than we do in the US.

 

[flicka]

I said nothing negative about formal education. I am however being negative about the idea that one can be of value to society simply by amassing knowledge and never doing anything with it other that amassing more knowledge.

It depends on what you mean by doing something with the knowledge you acquire. IMO the person who is knowledgable on a wide variety of things make them valuable to our lives. My having ideas you may not have they might lead you down a different path than one you would have taken on your own. Everything is connected to everything else and lack of knowledge is a dead end no matter how you look at it.

 

[JoyJuice]

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

I would imagine the studies are numerous and quite available.

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).

I certainly see a difference where those horses are definately drinking and things since the passing of civil rights and the implentation of actions, for example, to make sure it's happening are making a difference.

 

[chaz345]

I certainly see a difference where those horses are definately drinking and things since the passing of civil rights and the implentation of actions, for example, to make sure it's happening are making a difference.

Absolutely. My issue is that it seems to me that we have many cases where the horses aren't drinking and the unequal results are blamed on the false notion that the water doesn't exist.

 

[chaz345]

He reformed welfare and signed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Neither of these are "liberal". In fact, DADT is sort of right wing. He also signed DOMA.

Everything he did seemed to be moderate. Right in line with the middle of the country.

HE reformed welfare?That's a joke. He vetoed it at least once and was going to again until it was clear he'd be overridden. Anything conservative that Clinton did he was basically forced to do by the conservatively controlled congress.

 

[chaz345]

It depends on what you mean by doing something with the knowledge you acquire. IMO the person who is knowledgable on a wide variety of things make them valuable to our lives. My having ideas you may not have they might lead you down a different path than one you would have taken on your own. Everything is connected to everything else and lack of knowledge is a dead end no matter how you look at it.

I thought I have been clear in a previous post that by doing something with the knowledge I was not necessarily limiting it to anything in particular. And again we're talking about a spectrum here. Either end can be bad. There is nothing inherently good in having knowledge if it is not used in some way. But by used in some way , I'm not necessarily talking about just a marketable skill.

 

[JoyJuice]

Absolutely. My issue is that it seems to me that we have many cases where the horses aren't drinking and the unequal results are blamed on the false notion that the water doesn't exist.

I don't think we are that far apart, but, I know there's that but, I don't think the issue is as pervasive as you seem to be making it. Yes, we do have a black man and a white woman running for president and certainly a segment of society will not vote for them just based on who they are, but through those ideas of freedom and equality expedited by liberalism, they have indeed improved just in that respect. I don't think I live in a cave but in example the only arguments I hear about things like Affirmative action is not that it's not working, but one's against it as being no longer needed. I understand that's a whole new thread itself, but I just don't hear as many claims of opportunities just not being there. Attitudes don't change overnight but to me, and to many, that idea of liberalism where we are not going to wait for a certian segment to change their attitudes conservatively (slow change) has been a blessing.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

A lot of people don't realize that America's Left wing is actually right wing in perspective to the rest of the world. The policies of the democrats would places them about centre right on the political compass.

I got this pic from here.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

I'm more liberal than any Democrat in the front running for the "liberal" party.

 

[chaz345]

I don't think we are that far apart, but, I know there's that but, I don't think the issue is as pervasive as you seem to be making it. Yes, we do have a black man and a white woman running for president and certainly a segment of society will not vote for them just based on who they are, but through those ideas of freedom and equality expedited by liberalism, they have indeed improved just in that respect. I don't think I live in a cave but in example the only arguments I hear about things like Affirmative action is not that it's not working, but one's against it as being no longer needed. I understand that's a whole new thread itself, but I just don't hear as many claims of opportunities just not being there. Attitudes don't change overnight but to me, and to many, that idea of liberalism where we are not going to wait for a certian segment to change their attitudes conservatively (slow change) has been a blessing.

Actually I think our whole conversation is a subject for another thread but since no one has complained I see no reason to not continue.

On the affirmative action point that's actually a good example. I don't go so far as to say it's no longer necessary and it is a stretch to say it isn't working at all, but providing opportunity will only go so far. We'll always have those that refuse to drink, and in my opinion society owes them nothing. We have, in my opinion, gotten to the point where we need to get serious about addressing other contributors to the inequality of results because the opportunity side of the equation,while obviously not totally fixed, has reached the point where even large efforts will only result in small improvements. It's time to start addressing the refusal to drink. The problem is one can't do that without being called a racist or a woman hater, even is one is a woman or a minority member.

 

[chaz345]

A lot of people don't realize that America's Left wing is actually right wing in perspective to the rest of the world. The policies of the democrats would places them about centre right on the political compass.

I got this pic from here.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

And what is the relevance unless you want the US to become what the rest of the world is. The US has always been different from the rest of the world. Different is not bad. It's not inherently good either. Being the same is neither inherently good or bad either.

The US being what it is, and being so different from t he rest of the world has it's good points and it's bad points. I happen to believe that the good outweigh the bad but obviously many would disagree.

 

[Verv]

Perhaps the reason why there are more candidates that are right wing has to do with the fact that you cannot really operate in the reality of the political world without recognizing the validity of free market capitalism.

Most of the issues go back to money -- whether we are taxing a lot or a little, whether we are spending it on this or that; whether the economy is good or not.

There is an interesting trend in most countries that if the left wing controls the government long enough, the walls will start to come tumbling down.

 

[Vene]

If you want a free market, then the candidates should be closer to the anarchy axis, they're the ones who want the least government possible. Except for Ron Paul all the Republican candidates are far closer to a big government.

As far as the left wing destroying the government, Finland is socialist and they have a very high quality of life along with outliving Americans. So, yes, far left policies can work.