Why Conservatives Are Smarter [Archive]

hoosier

12-06-2005, 09:34 PM

Why Conservatives Are Smarter

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Rosenblum of Jewish Media Resources ponders the careers of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice-designate Sam Alito, and in the process makes an excellent point about Ivy League conservatives and liberals:

Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own._._._.

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises._._._.

Liberals can be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views--especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

This is true beyond the Ivy League. With liberalism the dominant ideology in the news and entertainment media, it is virtually inescapable to any American who doesn't go to great lengths to insulate himself from it. Big-city liberals, by contrast, can easily filter out conservative ideas, and thus need contend only with their own prejudices. Thus conservatives are smarter than liberals--not necessarily in terms of native intelligence, but of understanding the world around them.

(Hope the headline doesn't distract too much - some good info here)

Betarulz!

12-06-2005, 11:40 PM

Okay, I'll bite...

First critique is that this has nothing to do with intelligence which this concedes...NOR does it have anything to do with "understanding the world around you". This does have potential implications in skills and presentation of oneself, but to use the terms smarter or intelligence is an extreme misnomer designed to draw attention and controversy.

2nd...this definitely does not extend to all conservatives, all Ivy League conservatives or even all college educated conservatives. By this token, I'm a "smarter" liberal b/c I've lived in staunchly red states my entire life, and while yes, attending college did mean I found more people who think like me, I have met just as many who don't.

These types of articles do nothing to advance conversation, just to spread more distrust.

Kevin

12-06-2005, 11:50 PM

They are written for the self-edification of their intended audience. Nothing more.

If hoosier wants to compare his own intelligence to that of Roberts, Alito or Scalia... fine.

No hoosier, I'm not saying you're dumb -- just that this seems to be what the article is asking of its intended audience.

Rudey

12-07-2005, 12:04 AM

I think it's true.

-Rudey

KSig RC

12-07-2005, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Rudey
I think it's true.

-Rudey

OPhiARen3

12-07-2005, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by hoosier
Why Conservatives Are Smarter

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Rosenblum of Jewish Media Resources ponders the careers of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice-designate Sam Alito, and in the process makes an excellent point about Ivy League conservatives and liberals:

Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own._._._.

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises._._._.

Liberals can be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views--especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.

This is true beyond the Ivy League. With liberalism the dominant ideology in the news and entertainment media, it is virtually inescapable to any American who doesn't go to great lengths to insulate himself from it. Big-city liberals, by contrast, can easily filter out conservative ideas, and thus need contend only with their own prejudices. Thus conservatives are smarter than liberals--not necessarily in terms of native intelligence, but of understanding the world around them.

(Hope the headline doesn't distract too much - some good info here)

Okay, let's take this bit by bit:

1) What "minority status" do conservatives have, exactly? In case you missed the memo, the climate in this country (the U.S.) is becoming increasingly conservative in recent years. I know that in very few settings have I, as a liberal individual, ever been the majority - and yes, that does include on my college campus. (Where are the liberal colleges that everyone keeps talking about, and why didn't I go to one? Some of these people here are insane ...)

2) Both conservatives and liberals resort to yelling "You're an idiot!" - it has more to do with analytical and debating skills than political persuasion. I can think of a certain conservative on this board who, when apparently unable to logically answer my questions, called me a rabid dog instead.

3) Dealing with those of opposing views can be difficult for everyone, regardless of whether your own views are conservative or liberal. To me, it seems evident that conservatives have a harder time than liberals with this, simply by looking at the typical conservative and liberal positions on several "hot-button issues" of the moment, such as gay marriage. The conservatives, by definition, seem to have difficulty allowing others to make their own choices.

4) Who dismisses who as "morally challenged", exactly? I certainly hear this more from the conservative toward the liberals.

5) Both people in cities and people in rural areas could stand for quite a bit of educating regarding the way one another think and live. As for representations in the media, conservatives themselves have told me that they love Fox News for it's "non-liberal viewpoint".

Where do you find stuff like this? It's ridiculous ...

hoosier

12-07-2005, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by OPhiARen3
Okay, let's take this bit by bit:

1) What "minority status" do conservatives have, exactly? In case you missed the memo, the climate in this country (the U.S.) is becoming increasingly conservative in recent years. I know that in very few settings have I, as a liberal individual, ever been the majority - and yes, that does include on my college campus. (Where are the liberal colleges that everyone keeps talking about, and why didn't I go to one? Some of these people here are insane ...)

There are "conservative" colleges - like Hillsdale and Bob Jones - but liberals rule most places. It's not the conservative Yale law profs arguing at the Supreme Court this week trying to uphold a ban on military recruiting. There were several stories before the 2004 election comparing the party registration of college profs - and almost none are registered Republicans.

2) Both conservatives and liberals resort to yelling "You're an idiot!" - it has more to do with analytical and debating skills than political persuasion. I can think of a certain conservative on this board who, when apparently unable to logically answer my questions, called me a rabid dog instead.

Sure, weak debaters on both sides resort to yelling, and one post comparing you to a dog proves nothing.

3) Dealing with those of opposing views can be difficult for everyone, regardless of whether your own views are conservative or liberal. To me, it seems evident that conservatives have a harder time than liberals with this, simply by looking at the typical conservative and liberal positions on several "hot-button issues" of the moment, such as gay marriage. The conservatives, by definition, seem to have difficulty allowing others to make their own choices.

Please spell out some of these "hard times." One of the principles of conservatism is a belief in the rule of law - not in the discredited "do your own thing."

4) Who dismisses who as "morally challenged", exactly? I certainly hear this more from the conservative toward the liberals.

Many libs led the hippee era of free love, communes, etc., and still live, teach, vote, and preach that philosophy. Of course, conservatives work against the morally challenged.

5) Both people in cities and people in rural areas could stand for quite a bit of educating regarding the way one another think and live. As for representations in the media, conservatives themselves have told me that they love Fox News for it's "non-liberal viewpoint".

No one had stepped forward with a single instance of Fox News being biased or distorting news (and natl. talk show host Neal Boortz has offered $10,000 for an example). The Fox talk show hosts have view points - that's their job. They are not newsmen.

Even if one accepts that Fox has a conservative viewpoint, that's one cable network against CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, MTV, VH1, Wash. Post, NY Times, LA Times, and a hundred more regional newspapers.
Name one conservative regularly appearing on CNN? Even Sean Hannity has the lib Colmes as a co-host.

Where do you find stuff like
this? It's ridiculous ...

The most damning part of my original post is:

"They (conservatives) learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot."

You have given us four examples to such shouting in your four paragraphs:

1 - Some of these people here are insane
2 - Where do you find stuff like this?
3 - It's ridiculous ...
4 - The conservatives, by definition, seem to have difficulty

Let's debate - not shout "You're an idiot."

Sister Havana

12-07-2005, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by hoosier
Even if one accepts that Fox has a conservative viewpoint, that's one cable network against CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, MTV, VH1, Wash. Post, NY Times, LA Times, and a hundred more regional newspapers.
Name one conservative regularly appearing on CNN? Even Sean Hannity has the lib Colmes as a co-host.

Robert Novak.

As a bonus, on MSNBC you have Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough, not exactly flaming liberals.

hoosier

12-07-2005, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Sister Havana
Robert Novak.

As a bonus, on MSNBC you have Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough, not exactly flaming liberals.

Believe Novak is gone.

Saw Joe as Grand Marshall in Pensacola Sun. He's a former GOP congressman.

Even with these examples, the Red State type people are not getting near equal time in the MSM.

damasa

12-07-2005, 07:26 PM

Alan Colmes is not a Liberal.

His book also sucks the bucket.

hoosier

12-07-2005, 07:52 PM

(Not that I trust Wikipedia, but many GCers do)

Alan Colmes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Alan Colmes (born September 24, 1950 in New York City, New York), is the liberal half of Fox News Channel's popular political debate program Hannity and Colmes, along with the staunch conservative Sean Hannity. He was a well-known radio talk show personality in the New York City area before being asked to co-host the show at Hannity's request. Colmes is married to the sister of radio host Monica Crowley.

Alan Colmes also hosts his own nationally syndicated radio show, The Alan Colmes Show, formerly FOX News Live with Alan Colmes. He has also written a book, Red, White & Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong (ISBN 0060562978) which was published in October 2003.

Betarulz!

12-07-2005, 08:54 PM

Alan Colmes is nothing more than a shell...He never calls Hannity out on anything and a lot times takes an extremely centrist view. He's only liberal b/c he's sitting next to Hannity.

Rudey

12-07-2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Betarulz!
Alan Colmes is nothing more than a shell...He never calls Hannity out on anything and a lot times takes an extremely centrist view. He's only liberal b/c he's sitting next to Hannity.

What views does he hold on popular topics?

Both of the Clintons and Lieberman take Centrist views on the left. Are they not liberal either?

-Rudey

Sister Havana

12-07-2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by hoosier
Believe Novak is gone.

Not according to the CNN website.

RACooper

12-07-2005, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by ktsnake
They are written for the self-edification of their intended audience. Nothing more.

Oh come on... that was much more polite a euphamism than I would expect from you...

Kevin

12-08-2005, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by RACooper
Oh come on... that was much more polite a euphamism than I would expect from you...

Sometimes I excede expectations.

Actually, most of the time.

Come to think of it... All except that one time.

lifesaver

12-08-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by hoosier
There are "conservative" colleges - like Hillsdale and Bob Jones - but liberals rule most places.

Yeah, I'm going to need some stastical proof on your broad sweeping generalization here.

Also, I call BS. You cant rail against wikipedia in other posts (several, in fact) then go on to cite it as a source when it suits your needs and you cant qualify your opinions otherwise.

You either withdraw your above claim cited in Wiki, or the one from the other thread where you thought nazis were liberals. (where you refused to admit you were wrong.)

did you really think I'd let that slip? Come on old man, you got better game than that.

RACooper

12-09-2005, 10:12 AM

Tom Earp

12-09-2005, 04:28 PM

Coop, isnt BOB JONES a college? Or so professes to be?

Does a Liberal get up on the Right of The Bed and A Conservitive get up on the left side of the Bed? If this is true so far, where does a Moderate get in Bed?:)

hoosier

12-09-2005, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by lifesaver
Yeah, I'm going to need some stastical proof on your broad sweeping generalization here.

Also, I call BS. You cant rail against wikipedia in other posts (several, in fact) then go on to cite it as a source when it suits your needs and you cant qualify your opinions otherwise.

You either withdraw your above claim cited in Wiki, or the one from the other thread where you thought nazis were liberals. (where you refused to admit you were wrong.)

did you really think I'd let that slip? Come on old man, you got better game than that.

Believe I added a qualifier regarding Wiki - only a source, not to be trusted unless you know the info to be true.

Nazis = National Socialists = lefties, like all socialists.

--------------------
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Content/read.asp?ID=55

A Report of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture

Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties
of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities

Executive Summary (David Horowitz and Eli Lehrer)

This report on political bias at 32 elite colleges and universities is the third in a series conducted by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and researched by Andrew Jones.[1]

Summary of Results

In our examinations of over 150 departments and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges and universities, the Center found the following:

The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans we were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134 Republicans).
----------------------------------------

PS: Posting names is a violation of TOS, according to John.

hoosier

12-09-2005, 11:13 PM

Good Christmas present:

Red State USA Cap

Red State: What started out as a simple political buzzword now represents the hearts of millions of Americans. Show your support for the Bush administration and conservative values in America by wearing your Red State USA cap. This vibrant red cap is embroidered in white with the bold statement "Red State USA."

Our Price: $19.95

Kevin

12-09-2005, 11:33 PM

Which conservative values does Bush represent?

hoosier

12-10-2005, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by ktsnake
Which conservative values does Bush represent?

1 - He has tried to get some measurable results from federal education spending, via testing and "no child left behind"

2 - He has strengthened national defense, and taken action against the Islamic Terrorists who attacked us

3 - He's tried to give welfare recipients a chance to get housing and ownership opportunities

4 - appointed an aggressive diplomat to help get UN reform, appointed an excellent conservative SC judge, and nominated another good SC guy.

Unfortunately, he's also signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act which limited free speech and opened up the doors to financial tsunamis, signed the highway bill funding Alaskas bridge to nowhere, appointed a horseshow guy to head FEMA, and spent like a democrat.

kstar

12-10-2005, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by hoosier
Nazis = National Socialists = lefties, like all socialists.

Actually, the Nazis were at the far right of Germany's political spectrum.

Though, most political scientists now, don't use the linear model, they prefer a circle. If you go to far to the left or right, you are basically at the same place. For instance, the Chinese Totalitarian "Communist" Regime is basically equivalent to the Totalitarian Nazi Regime.

kstar

12-10-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by hoosier
1 - He has tried to get some measurable results from federal education spending, via testing and "no child left behind"

2 - He has strengthened national defense, and taken action against the Islamic Terrorists who attacked us

3 - He's tried to give welfare recipients a chance to get housing and ownership opportunities

4 - appointed an aggressive diplomat to help get UN reform, appointed an excellent conservative SC judge, and nominated another good SC guy.

Unfortunately, he's also signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act which limited free speech and opened up the doors to financial tsunamis, signed the highway bill funding Alaskas bridge to nowhere, appointed a horseshow guy to head FEMA, and spent like a democrat.

1) How does testing and "every child gets left behind" help schools?

2) He ignored memos from the Clinto administration about possible terrorist activity, which led to 9/11, then attacked a country under the guise of WMDs, while disregarding the UN watchdogs information that there were none. Guess what, there weren't!

3) Why not help welfare recipients get jobs, not put them further in debt?

4) Though, I think that the Supreme Court should be an impartial body. I don't like the idea of the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, including the House and Senate.

Also, WTF? "spent like a democrat?" His spending is out of control, but democrats typically raise money for their spending, not cut taxes. Wasn't the highest budget surplus under a Democrat? I do believe it was. However, the two highest deficits were under both Bushes.

Kevin

12-10-2005, 12:17 AM

layla2728

12-10-2005, 12:26 AM

layla2728

12-10-2005, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by hoosier
1 - He has tried to get some measurable results from federal education spending, via testing and "no child left behind"

2 - He has strengthened national defense, and taken action against the Islamic Terrorists who attacked us

3 - He's tried to give welfare recipients a chance to get housing and ownership opportunities

4 - appointed an aggressive diplomat to help get UN reform, appointed an excellent conservative SC judge, and nominated another good SC guy.

Unfortunately, he's also signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act which limited free speech and opened up the doors to financial tsunamis, signed the highway bill funding Alaskas bridge to nowhere, appointed a horseshow guy to head FEMA, and spent like a democrat.

1 - tried and failed... mostly because he just used a good PR-sounding name for an act that effectively did nothing

2 - last I heard, we haven't caught Osama yet... you know, the one who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks

3 - even if this was true... since when has welfare been a priority for republicans?

4 - the guy he appointed to the UN has had nothing but disrespectful comments to make about the organization, and people around the world thought the appointment made a mockery of the position

going along with ktsnake... just how does the expansion of the government under Bush go along with conservative values? aren't they supposed to be the ones for decentralization? but I could be wrong I guess... I'm only a poli sci major.

hoosier

12-10-2005, 01:06 AM

As I've posted before, the Republicans control the House and Senate.

However, conservatives do not control either, and there is a difference.

Hopefully, in '06 and '08, more conservatives (Dem or GOP) will be elected, and more 'moderates' and libs will lose.

PS: I think that if 'no child left behind' included a paragraph saying 'every teacher gets a $5,000 raise', all the teachers and all the teachers' unions would be saying 'great legislation, we should have done this years ago. All those tests are really helping the children.'

Similarly, if Wal-Mart announced tomorrow that employee unions are welcome, 95% of the anti-Wal-Mart activity would cease.

RACooper

12-10-2005, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by hoosier
Similarly, if Wal-Mart announced tomorrow that employee unions are welcome, 95% of the anti-Wal-Mart activity would cease.

And if you believe that I got some nice mountain lake property to sell you in Saskatchewan :p

hoosier

12-10-2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by RACooper
And if you believe that I got some nice mountain lake property to sell you in Saskatchewan :p

If you don't believe it is true, why are the two natl. anti-WM groups funded by the retail clerks unions? (per USA Today article this week) It's not a secret.

Anything in north GA/NC mountains?

Rudey

12-10-2005, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by layla2728
1 - tried and failed... mostly because he just used a good PR-sounding name for an act that effectively did nothing

2 - last I heard, we haven't caught Osama yet... you know, the one who actually claimed responsibility for the attacks

3 - even if this was true... since when has welfare been a priority for republicans?

4 - the guy he appointed to the UN has had nothing but disrespectful comments to make about the organization, and people around the world thought the appointment made a mockery of the position

going along with ktsnake... just how does the expansion of the government under Bush go along with conservative values? aren't they supposed to be the ones for decentralization? but I could be wrong I guess... I'm only a poli sci major.

1) Failed? That explains the measured and recorded improvements (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html). That explains why so many Dems were on board, and so many were upset that they wanted to present an idea like this first.

2) Yeah Clinton should have killed him. Clinton should have pursued him. Clinton, didn't. Now we have a problem. And now even if Osama died, that means nothing. Al Quaeda is considered a consulting group that provides financing and education to local terror cells and takes credit on a parallel level.

3) Getting people off welfare is.

4) Actually now that the politics game has subsided by Democrats on this, Bolton is getting praised quite a bit for his ability to get things done in the UN and his pursuit of serious reforms.

-Rudey

Rudey

12-10-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by ktsnake
So as a "conservative", he's expanded the federal government's size and influence more than anyone in recent history?

Again, how does Bush support conservative values?

His pro-business actions and tax cutting activities are very conservative.

His expansion of spending and the deficit is not and can only be explained by the incorporation of the liberal Christians into the Republican party from the Democratic Party (many also believe that these same Christians are reconsidering a switch back).

-Rudey

Rudey

12-10-2005, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by kstar
1) How does testing and "every child gets left behind" help schools?

2) He ignored memos from the Clinto administration about possible terrorist activity, which led to 9/11, then attacked a country under the guise of WMDs, while disregarding the UN watchdogs information that there were none. Guess what, there weren't!

3) Why not help welfare recipients get jobs, not put them further in debt?

4) Though, I think that the Supreme Court should be an impartial body. I don't like the idea of the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, including the House and Senate.

Also, WTF? "spent like a democrat?" His spending is out of control, but democrats typically raise money for their spending, not cut taxes. Wasn't the highest budget surplus under a Democrat? I do believe it was. However, the two highest deficits were under both Bushes.

1) How about you make a point?

2) "During Clinton's tenure, Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. At the end of his term, in late 2000, the terrorists struck again with the USS Cole bombing. By this time, Clinton has stated he regarded Al-Qaeda as the foremost threat to national security. [12] In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the independent investigating commission was critical of Clinton for focusing more on diplomatic than military means to eliminate the bin Laden threat."

That surplus was the results of Republicans pushing Clinton back, weakening him, which led to a surplus.

-Rudey

Rudey

12-10-2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by kstar
Actually, the Nazis were at the far right of Germany's political spectrum.

Though, most political scientists now, don't use the linear model, they prefer a circle. If you go to far to the left or right, you are basically at the same place. For instance, the Chinese Totalitarian "Communist" Regime is basically equivalent to the Totalitarian Nazi Regime.

"Nazism was the ideology held by the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly called NSDAP or the Nazi Party), which was led by its "Führer", Adolf Hitler. The word Nazism is most often used in connection with the dictatorship of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (the "Third Reich"), and it is derived from the term National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, often abbreviated NS). "

If one were to draw a ven diagram, the intersection between socialism and fascism is rather large. State control of businesses is really not a conservative value, neither is the large expansion of government and its powers. It's not quite liberal and not quite conservative. Plus the definitions of liberal and conservative vary.

-Rudey

Kevin

12-10-2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Rudey
His pro-business actions and tax cutting activities are very conservative.

That I'll agree with you on. But tax cuts need to accompany cuts in spending. Otherwise, the tax cuts are just irresponsible.

His expansion of spending and the deficit is not and can only be explained by the incorporation of the liberal Christians into the Republican party from the Democratic Party (many also believe that these same Christians are reconsidering a switch back).

-Rudey

I have a hard time categorizing the fundamentalists as liberal or conservative. I think they are sort of in a class of their own. The Dems can have them back though. Neither party will give them what they want. Sure, the Republicans talk a good game about being against abortion and other such things, but we'd rather have the issue than the solution.

-- And I'm not sure I buy that NCLB, the TSA, or the Patriot Act were creations of the fundamentalists Christians if that's what you're trying to allege.

Rudey

12-10-2005, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by ktsnake
That I'll agree with you on. But tax cuts need to accompany cuts in spending. Otherwise, the tax cuts are just irresponsible.

I have a hard time categorizing the fundamentalists as liberal or conservative. I think they are sort of in a class of their own. The Dems can have them back though. Neither party will give them what they want. Sure, the Republicans talk a good game about being against abortion and other such things, but we'd rather have the issue than the solution.

-- And I'm not sure I buy that NCLB, the TSA, or the Patriot Act were creations of the fundamentalists Christians if that's what you're trying to allege.

They are liberal like Carter. Not exactly happy about the war and want bigger government spending in most areas (schools, foreign aid, even the environment, etc.). Both parties will give them what they want. Everyone wants votes. I wish they were Democrats again too. It would make me stop smacking my head every time I read about a new act in the paper.

And no NCLB was actually pretty cross-platform and bipartisan with Christian support as well. The TSA is the security people at the airport? If that's who you're referring to, I don't think you'll find Howard Dean or anyone not conservative (nor Christian) saying they want less security at the airport. I am waiting for them to open up the fast line or adopt something like Indonesia (I think it's Indonesia) where they just scan your eye. The Patriot Act was pretty cross platform too, although with time limits.

Until the congressional elections are going to be over, the American people will suffer. Politicians will jump around on issues and attack each other over anything to get higher numbers.

-Rudey

hoosier

12-10-2005, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by kstar

Though, most political scientists now, don't use the linear model, they prefer a circle. If you go to far to the left or right, you are basically at the same place. For instance, the Chinese Totalitarian "Communist" Regime is basically equivalent to the Totalitarian Nazi Regime.

Sure, the lib professors and the revisionists are embarrassed that the most reviled people of the 20th century - the Nazis - are truly socialists and lefties, so they want to change history and change facts.

If your profs are teaching this, I hope you will think critically about it.

I don't see how becoming more conservative would make you a lib, or becoming more lefty and radical would make you conservative.

The commies are leftists too.

Kevin

12-10-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Rudey

Until the congressional elections are going to be over, the American people will suffer. Politicians will jump around on issues and attack each other over anything to get higher numbers.

-Rudey

I think we substantially agree on everything but the TSA -- there, the President/Congress nationalized an entire industry. They replaced it with a federal agency that hasn't shown to be any better at all. To say that as an administration, the Bush admin doesn't think that independent contractors (what airline security used to be) can't do a good job defies logic. We've never in the history of the nation used more independent contractors for national security purposes than right now.. I agree as to more airline security, not less, but does the government really have to foot the bill? Why can the airports not supply this competently?

(something for another thread I guess)

Kevin

12-10-2005, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by hoosier
Sure, the lib professors and the revisionists are embarrassed that the most reviled people of the 20th century - the Nazis - are truly socialists and lefties, so they want to change history and change facts.

If your profs are teaching this, I hope you will think critically about it.

I don't see how becoming more conservative would make you a lib, or becoming more lefty and radical would make you conservative.

The commies are leftists too.

Hoosier, your argument just does not stack up. Let me try and repeat what I'm understanding you to say:

Left-wing Americans and Nazis are similar to Communists.

If that is what you're saying, please offer some evidence to support it. Which positions do they all agree on where you can say that they are not only similar, but the same.

Redistribution of the wealth does not equate to 'From each according to their ability to each according to their need'. They're different things.

Read your own signature, that's some good advice.

kddani

12-10-2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by hoosier

PS: Posting names is a violation of TOS, according to John.

P.P.S.- Posting copyrighted text is also against the TOS, as you've been told a number of times, but yet you continue to do so

Rudey

12-10-2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by kddani
P.P.S.- Posting copyrighted text is also against the TOS, as you've been told a number of times, but yet you continue to do so

Do you feel people have the right to post his name because he posts articles? If not, don't link the two together.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you defended zntke when he was posting copyrighted info. John never quite resolved that. Is posting a blurb not posting copyrighted info? I'm not quite sure that jives. I am happy to see your attitude show flexibility and change your opinion on it.

-Rudey
--Defending the little guy since the beginning of time.

kddani

12-10-2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Rudey
Do you feel people have the right to post his name because he posts articles? If not, don't link the two together.

Also, unless I'm remembering incorrectly, you defended zntke when he was posting copyrighted info. John never quite resolved that. Is posting a blurb not posting copyrighted info? I'm not quite sure that jives. I am happy to see your attitude show flexibility and change your opinion on it.

-Rudey
--Defending the little guy since the beginning of time.

Personally I feel that people have the legal right to post his name for multiple reasons, but I respect John's wishes.

I believe you're remembering incorrectly. I'm 99.9% positive i've never defended posting copyrighted articles. And John has recently stated that cutting and pasting copyrighted articles is NOT acceptable, and it's a clear violation of the TOS. And hoosier has been informed of that.

-Since when is hoosier a little guy? I guess until he makes an anti-Semitic comment.

Rudey

12-10-2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by kddani
Personally I feel that people have the legal right to post his name for multiple reasons, but I respect John's wishes.

I believe you're remembering incorrectly. I'm 99.9% positive i've never defended posting copyrighted articles. And John has recently stated that cutting and pasting copyrighted articles is NOT acceptable, and it's a clear violation of the TOS. And hoosier has been informed of that.

-Since when is hoosier a little guy? I guess until he makes an anti-Semitic comment.

Dani his name has nothing to do with copyrighted material. Nothing.

I am pretty sure I remember correctly unless there was another KD in law school that acted like you.

You constantly get into pissing matches, act heinous towards people, and act like you're some white knight.

What does anti-semitic comments have to do with anything? Perhaps you should explain yourself.

Your line of thinking is ridiculous. I cannot imagine what kind of law firm you work for or what poor souls benefit from it, but wow.

Listen, if you want to push it with me go ahead. But now go ahead and explain the anti-semitic thing.

-Rudey

kddani

12-10-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Rudey
Dani his name has nothing to do with copyrighted material. Nothing.

I am pretty sure I remember correctly unless there was another KD in law school that acted like you.

You constantly get into pissing matches, act heinous towards people, and act like you're some white knight.

What does anti-semitic comments have to do with anything? Perhaps you should explain yourself.

Your line of thinking is ridiculous. I cannot imagine what kind of law firm you work for or what poor souls benefit from it, but wow.

Listen, if you want to push it with me go ahead. But now go ahead and explain the anti-semitic thing.

-Rudey

Feel free to find me the post where I supported it. If you do, I will be happy to own up to it. Even to humor you, i've done a search on my post and all that has turned up is that i've held the same position consistently. The TOS can't be any clearer: "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you." Cut and dry, no wiggle room for interpretation.

I never said they had anything to do with one another. But the rules apply to him as well, they can't just be used for his benefit.

Rudey, you're in no position to to talk about pissing matches and acting heinously towards people. You thrive on both.

Hoosier's made some ridiculous racist comments before, and if I remember correctly, at some point in time has made anti-semitic comments. It's been going on for years, and many of them have been deleted and/or edited.

Rudey

12-10-2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by kddani
Feel free to find me the post where I supported it. If you do, I will be happy to own up to it. Even to humor you, i've done a search on my post and all that has turned up is that i've held the same position consistently. The TOS can't be any clearer: "You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you." Cut and dry, no wiggle room for interpretation.

I never said they had anything to do with one another. But the rules apply to him as well, they can't just be used for his benefit.

Rudey, you're in no position to to talk about pissing matches and acting heinously towards people. You thrive on both.

Hoosier's made some ridiculous racist comments before, and if I remember correctly, at some point in time has made anti-semitic comments. It's been going on for years, and many of them have been deleted and/or edited.

Funny how zntke erased quite a few of those threads since they were about him and I was pushing the topic. I know what the TOS says. I pushed John on that topic a couple years ago. If John is against it, he will define copyrighted materials and say how much of an article that is posted is considered copyrighted. If John is against it, he will erase this forum. If John is against it, he will instruct the moderators to erase all such previous posts in the other forums.

Let me repeat this to you. YOU CANNOT POST HIS NAME. POSTING HIS NAME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS. Did it help that I put it in capital letters?

No I am in such a position. You are heinous.

Again explain what anti-semitic has to do with anything? Why did you bring it up in this thread? Why with me?? Let me help you. I've called two people out on it (Tom Earp and Cashmoney). I wasn't the only one, but you seem to have brought this up with me only. Those same two people, I have said made racist comments as well, but you seem to only bring up anti-semitism. And before you compared anti-semitism to having ill feelings toward the French, another stupid comment. So again Dani, please explain yourself. If hoosier posts something racist or anti-semitic, I will say something. This thread has nothing of that nature and ONLY YOU BROUGHT UP ANTI-SEMITISM.

Now go sell some underwear on ebay counselor.

-Rudey
--J to the O to the K to the E

hoosier

12-10-2005, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by ktsnake
Hoosier, your argument just does not stack up. Let me try and repeat what I'm understanding you to say:

Left-wing Americans and Nazis are similar to Communists.

If that is what you're saying, please offer some evidence to support it. Which positions do they all agree on where you can say that they are not only similar, but the same.

Redistribution of the wealth does not equate to 'From each according to their ability to each according to their need'. They're different things.

Read your own signature, that's some good advice.

I try to stack things up real good, but sometimes I fail.

Left wing Americans, Nazis, commies, etc. all want:

the public sector to provide
1 - health care
2 - education
3 - utilities
4 - mass transit

and sometimes also
5 - banking
6 - mining
7 - fuel extraction

It's common in Mexico, Argentina, and other oil-rich countries for the govt. to own/control the oil business, banking, etc. In the USA, the govt. already controls education, health care, and transit, and tightly supervises health care, utilities, banking, fuel extraction, and mining. Dems and libs want even more control.

===========
You said: Redistribution of the wealth does not equate to 'From each according to their ability to each according to their need'. They're different things.
===========

Actually, they're exactly the same thing. Dems/socialists/lefties favor the graduated income tax - high rates for high income people and businesses. Financially conservative people favor low taxes, levied and administered locally (not by the federal govt.), and know that businesses NEVER actually PAY taxes, they just collect it (as a hidden tax) from customers.

My signature: I try to make it valuable.

Thanks for your interesting questions/comments.

+++++++++++++
And here's some points copied from the evil Wiki:

Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production . As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century , modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels , according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned

----------

the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically- loaded term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class ; created through either revolution or by social evolution , with the purpose of building a classless society .

--------------

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed or supplant capitalism , and would later develop further into communism , as the necessity for the socialist structure would wither away.

------------

Democratic socialists maintain a commitment to the re-distribution of wealth and power and social ownership of most major industry, and some believe in a planned economy

------------

Democratic socialists have normally defended the role of the public sector , particularly as regards the provision of key services such as health care, education, utilities, mass transit, and sometimes also banking, mining, and fuel extraction.