The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: TexMex on May 03, 2012, 05:35:00 AM
-
I ask that you please read my introduction post before passing judgment on me and my question and following statement.
In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions. This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...
Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal
Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.
CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes. This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue. The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.
So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education. The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money. I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state. The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.
So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican? Now that is the general question I am proposing here, but as a secondary question, I ask another question and I will preface it with this:
You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs. But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.
Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.
-
Once again, you make generalizations without any solid basis in fact. I can point out many examples of areas which are urban and conservative (Orange County, CA, for example) and many areas which are "rural" yet very liberal (pretty much the entire state of VT, for example.)
Care to try again?
Oh, and while SOME areas fall under your criteria, the states you cite outside certain areas (NYC, LA, SF) are pretty conservative (again, Orange County, San Diego, and most of upstate NY.)
And no, you can't show a correlation between IQ and politics either. Nice try, though.
Do come again when you have a point, won't you?
-
I am starting to think that TexMex is doing a thesis on the difference in rural areas and populated areas with abortion rates and political party affiliations.
-
I got ONE common denominator-education.
Oh ****-nugget,
I will put that to the test any day of the week.
I make my living cleaning-up after people with a decade-plus more education than me.
You also assume all education is good education and that education equates with wisdom.
Ipso facto not so.
I am starting to think that TexMex is doing a thesis on the difference in rural areas and populated areas with abortion rates and political party affiliations.
It's about the 3rd or 4th one of these we've gotten. Its predecessors have actually openly declared they were writing papers for their college knowledge.
Every last one of them trucked in cheap stereotypes.
-
I'm starting to wonder why TexMex isn't taught in college the difference between 'There, Their, and They're'.
KC
-
Having a college education doesn't make you smart. I know people with PHD's who can't get jobs, and are dumb as stones, and they will be the first to admit it. Even they say a college degree means hardly anything these days, all it is is a status symbol. Yes, I am going to college also, but I'm not championing about it either. It is a choice that thousands of people make, and is a good choice, but it doesn't make you all holier than though because you are going.
Oh ****-nugget,
I will put that to the test any day of the week.
I make my living cleaning-up after people with a decade-plus more education than me.
You also assume all education is good education and that education equates with wisdom.
Ipso facto not so.
What he is saying is that the denominator he found was income an education. I am guessing that he he making a point that people with less education and higher income abort their kids at different rates and/or chose one or the other political affiliation. For exmple; he could be saying that people with less education abort their kids more and vote conservative, and people with an education and higher income abort their kids less and vote liberal.
-
Having a college education doesn't make you smart. I know people with PHD's who can't get jobs, and are dumb as stones, and they will be the first to admit it. Even they say a college degree means hardly anything these days, all it is is a status symbol. Yes, I am going to college also, but I'm not championing about it either. It is a choice that thousands of people make, and is a good choice, but it doesn't make you all holier than though because you are going.
What he is saying is that the denominator he found was income an education. I am guessing that he he making a point that people with less education and higher income abort their kids at different rates and/or chose one or the other political affiliation. For exmple; he could be saying that people with less education abort their kids more and vote conservative, and people with an education and higher income abort their kids less and vote liberal.
I count at least 5 errors in your first paragraph, alone; but that's OK...you're in college. :tongue: :cheersmate:
Anyhoo...
...I was still living in south Florida when hurricane Wilma came through. We were without power for 2 weeks and damage was fairly widespread in Browaed county. The neighborhood I live in was as mixed as they come as far as education, socio-economic status, race, etc. All those little demographic data points liberals like to use to pigeion-hole people.
I knew a lot of yuppies who wouldn't let my bunlets play with their brats. You kind of learn these things when you find out who doesn't come to your kid's birthday party and who doesn't invite you to their's.
meh
Yet, it was interesting how they suddenly became conciliatory towards you because you had the tools to cut-up the tree that had fallen into their kid's bedroom. It was fun watching them succumb to cuts on their hands that us poor, ig'nant types never seemed to suffer. It was truly amazing to watch them become winded within a short time of work as they tried to help their hired help who could work for 8-plus hours straight.
Anytime this little ****-nugget wants to ruck-up and hammer-out 12 miles in 3 hours then teach a class on the ACLS interventions for ventricular tachycardia then write code for the Chief-of-Staff's website then counsel young soldiers without destroying their fragile psyches and then go home and fix the chicken run and replace the brake pads on the Beach Bunny's car, it is welcome to come out and try.
And my life is cush...talk to those who have retired or are higher-up the food chain than me.
-
My 2 cents:
TexMex, you say that you found two common denominators, income and education. You say this as if it's a fact; that your thesis has already been proven and needs no more testing. Isn't this rather simplistic?
The denominator you're looking for is the level of self-reliance of an individual, or more precisely, how much self-reliance is valued. It's easy to observe this by contrasting this site with the liberals at DemocraticUnderground, which we do in the DUmpster section. You see, they believe that the word "bootstraps" is a dirty word. It makes them downright angry. Whereas we here, take pride in whatever accomplishments we've made on our own steam. They get disgusted at people too "proud" to take public assistance; most of us here, if we ever required it in an emergency, quickly got off it ASAP and rarely discuss it.
In rural areas you will see a high level of self-reliance. People proud to live off the land, and incidentally, taking very good care of that land. They are not interested in "social services" as they view that as government meddling, and being a ward/serf of the State. They want no part of this, regardless of income or education.
I have never lived in a big city, packed together. I'm guessing that they have more of a mind-set of relying on a collective body for life-in-general, so they are more receptive to a liberal/left POV.
If you're exploring this in a scholarly/academic way, I would veer away from abortion and gay marriage. This is a false avenue. These are "issues," you are searching for the core of one's being. Which, BTW, makes broad generalizations all that more dangerous.
-
It's about the 3rd or 4th one of these we've gotten. Its predecessors have actually openly declared they were writing papers for their college knowledge.
Every last one of them trucked in cheap stereotypes.
ding, ding, ding.
-1 for the noob. Again.
-
I count at least 5 errors in your first paragraph, alone; but that's OK...you're in college. :tongue: :cheersmate:
I never claimed to know everything either. As human we all make mistakes, and are constantly learning. :tongue: :-)
You know what they funny thing is? My english professor once said that there two things that college students struggle the most with; they are Grammar and Spelling. With how the public education system is in this country, I tend to agree with him.
-
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
That is a the biggest bunch of horseshit I've heard from you Progs.
-
In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions. This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...
Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal
Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.
CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes. This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue. The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.
I'm from a poor neighborhood in Brooklyn, I guess it was and can still be continued to be called "the hood" my Dad and Mom were both extremely poor growing up, my Dad was a Republican, my Mom was a Democrat until about 8 years ago, then she became a Republican, and I was born a Republican.
Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.
1. I'm pro-life, pro-gay marriage and the issues I really care about are financial issues.
2. When it comes to liberals and their money? they're cheap cheap cheap, red states and conservatives are more generous with their money, whereas the left are generous with other peoples money:
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3
3. I don't consider myself brainwashed at all, that's an easy out for you to say that because in your mind it shuts down the argument, conservatives make a very good case when it comes to economic issues, the lefts case? you can look at Greece and the rest of Europe.
-
This ****ing idiot sucks at pigeonholing. I'm assuming, he being a liberal, he sucks at everything else as well.
-
This ****ing idiot sucks at pigeonholing. I'm assuming, he being a liberal, he sucks at everything else as well.
I bet he even sucks at Gay Studies.
-
I'm starting to wonder why TexMex isn't taught in college the difference between 'There, Their, and They're'.
KC
Studentos are no longer taught any grammar.
-
Interestingly while TexMex claims neither side, s/he seems to stick to one theme;
Poor, stupid conservatives
vs.
Rich, educated liberals.
How about talking about the other side of the coin a little bit? Actually there's probably a dozen sides to this coin;
Rich, educated conservatives
Poor, educated conservatives
Rich, uneducated conservatives
vs.
Poor, educated liberals
Poor, uneducated liberals
Rich, uneducated liberals
There's some research for you to start on. Your stereotypes are hanging out ... you may want to check your zipper because you are exposing yourself.
KC
-
Studentos are no longer taught any grammar.
You know, normally I don't pick on grammar and spelling. I know we all get excited at times and type too fast but anytime someone comes in making the claims this poster is then it seems appropos.
KC
-
Interestingly while TexMex claims neither side, s/he seems to stick to one theme;
Poor, stupid conservatives
vs.
Rich, educated liberals.
How about talking about the other side of the coin a little bit? Actually there's probably a dozen sides to this coin;
Rich, educated conservatives
Poor, educated conservatives
Rich, uneducated conservatives
vs.
Poor, educated liberals
Poor, uneducated liberals
Rich, uneducated liberals
There's some research for you to start on. Your stereotypes are hanging out ... you may want to check your zipper because you are exposing yourself.
KC
Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?
military service = more likely conservative
It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.
-
You know, normally I don't pick on grammar and spelling. I know we all get excited at times and type too fast but anytime someone comes in making the claims this poster is then it seems appropos.
KC
I usually let it slide, too, but people use meaningless threads, unless and until you dissect the bad grammar. Then some of them are still meaningless. I have neither the time nor the inclination to translate peoples' messages.
-
I ask that you please read my introduction post before passing judgment on me and my question and following statement.
In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions. This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...
Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal
Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.
CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes. This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue. The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.
So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education. The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money. I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state. The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.
So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican? Now that is the general question I am proposing here, but as a secondary question, I ask another question and I will preface it with this:
You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs. But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.
Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.
Rubbish..I'm from two very dense population areas and now live more suburban/rural. I started liberal--unfortunately for them, their reasoning didn't make sense to me. I had a problem with the justifying--it did not compute and even as someone in my 20's it sure seemed like the whole premise was based on fallacies in today's world ie rampant racism and disparity in income that was some deliberate work of corporate masters. What really bothered me is that the people who complained the most about unfair circumstances seemed to be their own worst enemies with getting ahead and today's society indulged them in their worst behaviors under some banner of self-esteem.
Also, better education does not equate to being a better critical thinker. That, more then anything, is what I've found sets a conservative and liberal apart when income is equal. Schools don't teach to look at something and really ask questions. They teach to only ask questions IF it is A, B, or C(many times those blanks =A white B male C conservative/Christian). That's NOT criticial thinking; it just isn't. You should have introspection on your own beliefs or slant too, not just th eother guys if you truly think things through in a more logical and critical manner.
I also disagree with you that wealthy liberals 'care' more. I think they really are interested in distancing themselves from the poor masses and welfare is a way for them to push the 'poor' aside without actually getting their own hands dirty with their care(or even facing the realities of their circumstances). I've met very few rich liberals who actually have extended interaction with someone who is 'poor' to judge whether or not that person is a true victim of circumstances or has created their own issues. I can never understand why a liberal, who I assume has made mistakes in their own lives that they account for, doesn't think that someone else may have made bigger mistakes that are hindering them for the future.
The brainwashing thing I agree; that along with lack of critical thinking allows people to latch right on to the gay and racist agenda without even noticing the propensity of some of the more radical groups to be the worst offenders of that which they say they are fighting. A good example of that was the gay man who spoke at the bullying rally and most of those students cheered him when he was sitting there behaving as a bully himself to another group. Pure and simple there is something missing in those kids that they can not see just how hypocritical that man's behavior is. How can you not see that? It's glaring! AGain, lack of critical thinking skills and brainwashing.
Sorry, quick post so sorry it's disjointed.
PS I noticed someone else mentioned it but what of poor liberals? I see many of those in those dense urban areas. I wouldn't call them particularly bright or insightful, but like others have said, your premise is ripe with fallacies and have cherry-picked 'types' to fit how you see things. Like I said earlier, it's very important to invest time in reviewing our own personal bias first before we seek to really dissect the other guy's--just a thought.
-
Generalities = facts, jtyangel. Particularly for libs.
Didn't you know that? :sarcasm: off.
-
Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?
military service = more likely conservative
It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.
You're correct sir! I actually live in an odd area. Overall VERY conservative and vote overwhelmingly republican/libertarian in state and national elections. Locally I end up voting for a lot of democrats. They tend to be more conservative ... go figure. In all actuality I think the reason they run democrat is because this used to be a heavily democratic area so a lot of them, while very conservative, simply run on the D ticket.
KC
-
Generalities = facts, jtyangel. Particularly for libs.
Didn't you know that? :sarcasm: off.
Well even in that post, it floors me the inquisitor has not checked him/herself for his/her own bias. That's kinda my point with liberals generally; they don't have any introspection to challenge their own thoughts processes on things. They operate from the premise that they are right from the get go and it would seem to me in the classical liberal sense that runs antithesis to this idea that one has an open mind to begin with if they are that set in their own beliefs. Whose the conservative here and whose the liberal considering?
BTW, I don't hold a conservative to the same standard because most conservatives don't tout how tolerant or open-minded they are. They don't have the same ideals to live up to that the liberal claims.
-
Well even in that post, it floors me the inquisitor has not checked him/herself for his/her own bias. That's kinda my point with liberals generally; they don't have any introspection to challenge their own thoughts processes on things. They operate from the premise that they are right from the get go and it would seem to me in the classical liberal sense that runs antithesis to this idea that one has an open mind to begin with if they are that set in their own beliefs. Whose the conservative here and whose the liberal considering?
BTW, I don't hold a conservative to the same standard because most conservatives don't tout how tolerant or open-minded they are. They don't have the same ideals to live up to that the liberal claims.
I agree! It's like military heroes don't tout their brave actions.
-
I agree! It's like military heroes don't tout their brave actions.
:cheersmate:
-
Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?
military service = more likely conservative
It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.
There's something else I left out of my post that I feel needs to be rectified;
Education does NOT equal INTELLIGENCE. There are several more categories TexMex can now add. IE; Poor, intelligent - Rich, intelligent - Poor, unintelligent - Rich, unintelligent ...
KC
-
There's something else I left out of my post that I feel needs to be rectified;
Education does NOT equal INTELLIGENCE. There are several more categories TexMex can now add. IE; Poor, intelligent - Rich, intelligent - Poor, unintelligent - Rich, unintelligent ...
KC
Educated beyond their means.
Educated beyond their intelligence.
So I guess I'm conservative because I have no more than a high school diploma, yet I have a good job. On top of that I have the pleasure of stumping engineers on a daily basis.
-
Educated beyond their means.
Educated beyond their intelligence.
So I guess I'm conservative because I have no more than a high school diploma, yet I have a good job. On top of that I have the pleasure of stumping engineers on a daily basis.
It should lead the OP to the question of whether universities are teaching people WHAT to think rather then HOW to think. I wonder why that has never crossed the OP's mind?
-
A lib starts with the premise that there is nothing wrong with their thinking.
-
It should lead the OP to the question of whether universities are teaching people WHAT to think rather then HOW to think. I wonder why that has never crossed the OP's mind?
Excellent!
KC
-
Interestingly while TexMex claims neither side, s/he seems to stick to one theme;
Poor, stupid conservatives
vs.
Rich, educated liberals.
How about talking about the other side of the coin a little bit? Actually there's probably a dozen sides to this coin;
Rich, educated conservatives
Poor, educated conservatives
Rich, uneducated conservatives
vs.
Poor, educated liberals
Poor, uneducated liberals
Rich, uneducated liberals
There's some research for you to start on. Your stereotypes are hanging out ... you may want to check your zipper because you are exposing yourself.
KC
Tex Mex is mired in Liberal propaganda. He can't seem to be able to break away from the stereotypes fed to him by Liberal educators. Hence he continually gets Republican motivations wrong.
Tex, education today in liberal strongholds involves indoctrination specifically to produce people who think like you.
-
Well even in that post, it floors me the inquisitor has not checked him/herself for his/her own bias. That's kinda my point with liberals generally; they don't have any introspection to challenge their own thoughts processes on things. They operate from the premise that they are right from the get go and it would seem to me in the classical liberal sense that runs antithesis to this idea that one has an open mind to begin with if they are that set in their own beliefs. Whose the conservative here and whose the liberal considering?
BTW, I don't hold a conservative to the same standard because most conservatives don't tout how tolerant or open-minded they are. They don't have the same ideals to live up to that the liberal claims.
From the op's intro thread:as a poli sci major,
:whatever: Color me surprised. Very funny watching a liberal disavow he or she is a liberal...must suck to be ashamed of what you are.He or she also sucks at moleing! :-)
-
There's something else I left out of my post that I feel needs to be rectified;
Education does NOT equal INTELLIGENCE. There are several more categories TexMex can now add. IE; Poor, intelligent - Rich, intelligent - Poor, unintelligent - Rich, unintelligent ...
KC
My Dad quit school at 15 to join the Military during WW2, he lied about his age to get in, he wasn't book educated but he was 1 of the smartest men I've ever known. Some of the stupidest people you can ever meet are educated leftists, and if I'm generalizing? I don't care.
-
In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions. This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...
Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal
Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.
Your premise is based on completely unfounded assumptions and perhaps an outdated view of citizen mobility and the geography of work location vs. home.
If, for instance, you go by people who WORK in DC or NYC as opposed to those who actually LIVE there after 9 p.m. every day, you'll come up with a completely different picture of income and education. Outside isolated exceptions for the quite rich in places like Manhattan or Philly's Main Line, the highest average education and incomes generally end up outside the most highly urbanized areas.
On just a couple of other points, I'd note that central cities are not the engines of job growth they once were (Despite the fact that so much of our economic and government institutional infratstructure still acts like they are, since they were built when it was true and the assumption is hard-wired into them), and that being poor in a rural area is a whole different thing than being poor in an urban one with entirely different individual and societal coping mechanisms and costs.
I don't disagree with your very last sentence, in that both Liberals and Conservatives do tend to see things as more absolute than they really are, but you don't deal successfully with an adverse party by staking out a position firmly in the middle while they start on the extreme, or you'll end up halfway into their extreme before it's over in a negotiative process like representative democracy.
-
When I worked at the lab, I noted that some of the most "educated" individuals--the ones with PhD's--had the least amount of common sense in the world. These were people who could rattle off to you the entire sequence of a strand of DNA from the white-nosed fungus on a common bat--but if they opened the hood of their car, it was running and they had something dangling from their necks that would damn near get caught in the serpentine belt. "Book smart" is not "street smart."
-
There are many forms of intelligence, and often, no overlap between them.
-
From the op's intro thread: :whatever: Color me surprised. Very funny watching a liberal disavow he or she is a liberal...must suck to be ashamed of what you are.He or she also sucks at moleing! :-)
Well, from what I have seen they HATE being categorized and that's probably because it destroys the illusion that they are open-minded and tolerant. I say, claim it and let people know who you are, but be prepared to face scrutiny and understand you have as many narrowly focused beliefs as those 'backwards conservatives' you like to ridicule. Just tired of the shill game. What I just described was one of my initial falling away from liberalism as a younger adult.
You don't know anyone with the problem of disavowing their liberalism or at least disavowing that they are narrow-minded do you? :whistling: :-)
-
Not all rural areas are conservative or urban areas are liberal. Some cities are more liberal than others. For example Los Angeles County is split 50/50 with Lancaster being more conservative, while Los Angeles being more liberal. San Francisco city and county is more liberal than Los Angeles. Orange County and Staten Island are densely populate, is more conservative. New York City is quite liberal, but even there are pockets of conservative areas. Vermont and Maine are quite liberal and mostly rural. Areas dominated by the military are more conservative as MSB pointed out. He is right on that.
-
Well, from what I have seen they HATE being categorized and that's probably because it destroys the illusion that they are open-minded and tolerant. I say, claim it and let people know who you are, but be prepared to face scrutiny and understand you have as many narrowly focused beliefs as those 'backwards conservatives' you like to ridicule. Just tired of the shill game. What I just described was one of my initial falling away from liberalism as a younger adult.
You don't know anyone with the problem of disavowing their liberalism or at least disavowing that they are narrow-minded do you? :whistling: :-)
She is a source of alot of anxiety because of that! :banghead: :-)
-
She is a source of alot of anxiety because of that! :banghead: :-)
Well, that's only because 3 important people in your life gotta be around some of the insanity we witness of the DU mind..hang in :-* :cheersmate:
-
She is a source of alot of anxiety because of that! :banghead: :-)
Admit it, it's a source of a lot of good laughs too watching the pretzels of liberal logic happen before your very eyes :lmao:
-
Admit it, it's a source of a lot of good laughs too watching the pretzels of liberal logic happen before your very eyes :lmao:
Yes...critical thinking is not her strong suit nor is thinking period for that matter. :lmao:
-
Yes...critical thinking is not her strong suit nor is thinking period for that matter. :lmao:
She works a mean hot glue gun though :wink: :-)
-
She works a mean hot glue gun though :wink: :-)
:whatever: Yeah i need to borrow that for my wallet! :banghead: :-)
-
:whatever: Yeah i need to borrow that for my wallet! :banghead: :-)
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
Go to DU if you want to play in generalizations, "TexMex". None of us walk lockstep.
-
None of us walk lockstep.
+1
:-)
-
Go to DU if you want to play in generalizations, "TexMex". None of us walk lockstep.
Yup. My bitch slap count is proof enough of that.
:cheersmate:
-
TexMex hasn't responded to this thread in a while. He must be done with his thesis.
-
I smell another troll that won't be back often.
If it comes back it won't respond to criticism well or respond to direct questions.
-
TexMex hasn't responded to this thread in a while. He must be done with his thesis.
Maybe it went to DU for help on how to respond.
-
Maybe it went to DU for help on how to respond.
That is quit possible. I wouldn't be surprised if he came from the DUmp.
-
Tex isn't interested in truth. He's only out to reinforce his indoctrination.
-
Tex isn't interested in truth. He's only out to reinforce his indoctrination.
Probably.
-
She reminds me of Texas Toast. A totally dumb ass liberal who thinks putting "tex" somewhere in her internet handle will make us think she's not a liberal.
-
This was of the more intersting threads I have read here. A drive by that was at least worthy for the read and then a profound (and well thought out) beat down.
I love that, due to the fact that I don't know alot of things and I continue to learn.
I just wish I wasn't trying to read this thread and watch Mayweather vs Corrales 2001 at the same time.
-
Educated beyond their means.
Educated beyond their intelligence.
So I guess I'm conservative because I have no more than a high school diploma, yet I have a good job. On top of that I have the pleasure of stumping engineers on a daily basis.
That's what I consider the best part of my job. Yeah, I have a generic degree worth where that and $3 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but that's not where I learned 1--how to THINK, 2--how to develop a solid work ethic, 3--my political leanings.
Life and the experiences I've had thus far taught me those things. People might ask, "Don't you wish your life were easier, that you had done this instead of that, etc?" I tell them that I do not wish that, because then that person wouldn't be me.
-
TexMex was playing fast and loose with the truth, and got called on it.
-
the highest average education and incomes generally end up outside the most highly urbanized areas.
Correct. Look at areas like Conneticut, from which many of NYC's high-rollers reside. Or here in New Hampshire. Call it "Cow Hampshire" all you like, and we do rightly get the knock for having many people who commute to the greater Boston area, but by the same token we have the highest per-capita income in New England outside CT, and the lowest poverty rate in the entire nation. We have the second-lowest unemployment, and one of the bottom 3-4 tax burdens in the nation. For all that, NH can be considered (from one's viewpoint) conservative relative to surrounding states, or fairly middle of the road compared to the nation as a whole.
http://www.statemaster.com/cat/eco-economy
-
I ask that you please read my introduction post before passing judgment on me and my question and following statement.
In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions. This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...
Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal
Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.
CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes. This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue. The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.
So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education. The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money. I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state. The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.
So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican? Now that is the general question I am proposing here, but as a secondary question, I ask another question and I will preface it with this:
You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs. But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.
Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.
Poor conservatives do care about social issues. We also care about self-reliance.
Rich liberals vote for higher taxes on those that are "really rich," not themselves. They do this not out of compassion, but because they want the "really rich" to support the poor...and the safety net the liberals depend on. (Note that many liberals work in taxpayer supported fields, like teaching, unions or government.)
We currently see the results of over-taxing job creators while holding an unknown bill over their heads in the form of Obamacare. Those that can move overseas are. Those that can't aren't hiring. What is puzzling is how supposedly well-educated, intelligent liberals can be so dumb as to not see the facts right in front of their noses?
-
Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?
military service = more likely conservative
It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.
He'll come back with the typical reply that we're only in the military because we didn't have the opportunity...life skills or education to do anything else.
You know...the John Kerry theory of why we serve.
-
TexMex hasn't responded to this thread in a while. He must be done with his thesis.
No I think he moved to CU. n00b showed up over there after I went to bed last night that sounds just like this troll.
Calls itself "ASquareDealer".
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?49092-Greetings&p=501978#post501978
-
CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes. This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue. The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.
So, student, where does cost of living and tax burden fit into all of this? The average salary means zip shit if it all leaves the hands of the wage earner to stay alive.
Also, link the study and the data you are using.
So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education. The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money.
Bullshit. "Education" does not automatically equal income. I have met more than my fair share of liberal arts graduates that say the following things to me when I am at their place of employment:
- "Would you like fries with that?"
- Welcome to Hooters!"
- "Tall, grande, or venti?"
Anyone who is willing to apply themselves, use their talents, exercise some financial discipline, and be willing to put in the hours/effort can do far better than anyone who walked out of a university thinking money would just fall into their lap.
Would you be curious as to how I know this?
I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state. The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.
Link them.
So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican?
Kid, I have met plenty of rich cretins and more than my fair share of educated dumbasses. Your criteria, while somewhat useful in a classroom, does not survive first contact with reality. The less educated and more easily swayed tend more towards big nanny state liberalism while those who can think rationally would rather be left alone to live their lives without interference and without some "educated" fool telling them how stupid they are for not paying able bodied adults to sit on their asses.
You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs. But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.
Uh, no. What you are seeing is people who would rather have the chance to get "rich" on their own vice being lorded over by the "educated" that think they are masters of the universe. Nobody is going to tolerate being robbed at gunpoint over some idea of "guilt" for enjoying the fruits of their labor. Additionally, "poor" Conservatives don't seek to stick it to the rich - their lives aren't invested in how much someone else is forced to suffer and they don't generally seek handouts when they can provide for themselves; it's called a work ethic.
Kid, I suggest you take a good look at the founding of this country - you will find that it was founded by men who didn't particularly want to be ruled by those that thought they were their betters. Independence is an idea worth fighting for and one that is hardwired into most Americans from birth.
Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
Wrong. "Poor" Conservatives share the same values as "rich" conservatives - stay the Hell out of my wallet and quit shoving your morality down my throat. Power is derived from the consent of the governed, a concept that is ignored at great peril.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
Wrong. "Rich, educated liberals" are more interested in the same things as your garden variety moonbat - more compassion with other people's money. If you think for one hot second that a "rich, educated liberal" is going to pay more in taxes, you are a more naive fool than you appear.
Rich liberals are not compassionate by any stretch of the imagination. If they were serious about throwing money at a government that will eat up their "fair share" in multi-layered bureaucracies, they would write checks to the US treasury. There is nothing stopping them. Or, they could do what conservatives do and give it directly to charity.
Our government is not a charity, learn you history.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.
One does not have to be brainwashed to understand that you tax behavior that you want to limit. Want to see the financial shit hit the fan? Tell the job creators that legislation is being drafted to drastically raise their taxes. One thing you will find out very quickly is that wealth and money are very portable. Don't believe me? Ask Maryland how the "millionaires tax" worked out for them. You want to see it writ large? Watch France in the coming months and see how many producers are left after the socialist shitheads are sworn in. England is more than ready for a large influx of wealthy Frenchmen who will seek to escape the hyper "gimme" state they are about to become.
Bottom line, kid, I hope your parents aren't paying for your "education". I would be very pissed off if any of my children displayed your atrocious grammar and propagandized hypotheses at a college level.