December 16, 200618 yr [If you believe George Bush is Hitler and Nancy Pelosi is a moderate Democrat, you might be a liberal. Hitler atleast was intelligent. LMAO!
December 16, 200618 yr If you wished every city was like San Francisco, you might be a liberal. Oh do I ever... San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and best cities in the country hands down.
December 16, 200618 yr If you wished every city was like San Francisco, you might be a liberal. Oh do I ever... San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and best cities in the country hands down. SF, can't argue with that, the most beautiful in the US for sure.
December 16, 200618 yr Everyone seems to think that. Id love to go there just to see what all the hype is about. Im sure its an awesome city.
December 16, 200618 yr ^After you bumped this thread, I ran across this letter to the editor and had to post it: You might be a liberal There seem to be a great deal of people that you do not know whether they are liberal Democrats or evil conservatives. I thought I would help by pointing out some easy liberal views... ... Michael Byrd, Fairfield http://www.journal-news.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2006/12/15/hjn121506letters.html You, Michael Byrd of Fairfield, are the next Jeff Foxworthy!
September 19, 200717 yr Why is it that the "religious" right promotes policies that are detrimental to the environment and detrimental to poor people?! It's also ironic that rednecks (not to be confused with white-trash; rednecks work hard) routinely vote for a party that F$!ks them!
September 19, 200717 yr Why is it that the "religious" right promotes policies that are detrimental to the environment and detrimental to poor people?! It's also ironic that rednecks (not to be confused with white-trash; rednecks work hard) routinely vote for a party that F$!ks them! David, why are you so filled with hate? Why do you label all Republicans as the religious right? Do we not have the right to believe that there are better ways than government handouts to improve the lives of the poor? Have the democrats done that good a job over the past 40 years? Can't we all get along? Are you a redneck or white trash? How are the republicans continuing to F$!ks you?
September 19, 200717 yr Why is it that the "religious" right promotes policies that are detrimental to the environment and detrimental to poor people?! It's also ironic that rednecks (not to be confused with white-trash; rednecks work hard) routinely vote for a party that F$!ks them! ...and when did you stop beating your wife?
September 19, 200717 yr Im not filled with hate, I just got into an argument with my room mate about health care. That's all.
September 19, 200717 yr Im not filled with hate, I just got into an argument with my room mate about health care. That's all. Well, lets have a good discussion about health care. A reasonable one.
September 19, 200717 yr Why is it that the "religious" right promotes policies that are detrimental to the environment and detrimental to poor people?! It's also ironic that rednecks (not to be confused with white-trash; rednecks work hard) routinely vote for a party that F$!ks them! I think you'll find your answer right here: Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday. Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances. The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience. Intrigued by these correlations, New York University political scientist David Amodio and colleagues decided to find out if the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted differently to the same stimuli. A group of 43 right-handed subjects were asked to perform a series of computer tests designed to evaluate their unrehearsed response to cues urging them to break a well-established routine. "People often drive home from work on the same route, day after day, such that it becomes habitual and doesn't involve much thinking," Amodio explained by way of comparison in an e-mail. "But occasionally there is road work, or perhaps an animal crosses the road, and you need to break out of your habitual response in order to deal with this new information." Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain -- the anterior cingulate cortex -- that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring. The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine. Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed." Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn. Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal. As to the more intriguing question of which comes first, the patterns in neuron activity or the political orientation, Amodio is reluctant to hazard a guess. "The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage, he said. "But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development," he added. Obscuring causal links even more is the fact that the brain is malleable and neural functions can change as a result of new experiences. http://www.physorg.com/news108562207.html
September 19, 200717 yr Im not filled with hate, I just got into an argument with my room mate about health care. That's all. Well, lets have a good discussion about health care. A reasonable one. I'm burnt out on it now. Here's one of my rants. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=13178.0 Basically my room mate from Loveland and his world of warcraft buddies think it should be every man for himself, with his best argument being that taxes would be raised. Anyone who doesn't have good health insurance should be SOL because they should have known better than to not have it, he says. As for the redneck thing, "Deerhunting with Jesus" is a great book.
September 19, 200717 yr http://www.physorg.com/news108562207.html I love reading stuff like this. I used to read Psychology Today but the articles started to get repetative.
September 19, 200717 yr Damn, just noticed this thread, I'm a Republican and I'm on this site because urban development and planning interests me.. duh. And all this BS about all Republicans being part of the religious right is junk.. that's like saying every liberal is part of the left wing media.
September 20, 200717 yr the current republican party has more or less abandoned the small government, balanced budget, low taxes, personal freedom approach and is tilting towards theocracy and corporate welfare. If I had to vote republican I would vote Ron Paul.
September 20, 200717 yr "...and when did you stop beating your wife?" When I remembered we didn't sign a prenup and it giving her way more leverage? Im not sure what that means, im sure it's witty and just flew over my head but I am definitely NOT from Jamestown. I am NOT a settler! Although it would definitely qualify me for financial aid. Maybe I'll look into a Russian mail-order bride.
September 20, 200717 yr the current republican party has more or less abandoned the small government, balanced budget, low taxes, personal freedom approach and is tilting towards theocracy and corporate welfare. If I had to vote republican I would vote Ron Paul. True. If i were a Republican, I would spend my days and nights ferreting out the bloodsuckers (neocons; the religious right; Foley, Craig, Vitt and other career hypocrites) who'd hijacked my party. Then I would vote for Ron Paul.
September 20, 200717 yr the republican party is essentially three (four) parties 1. corporate pro business: vote R if you are rich 2. religious conservatives 3. libertarians (4. neocons) [5]. now defunct progressives ex. TR, to a much lesser extent Taft essentially group 1, a small percentage of america, votes their economic self interest (tough to blame them for that) and convinces group 2 to vote for the same party. group 3 goes along because the ideology of the party should be rooted in their views, but practically isn't. the neocons might either be a seperate group or a sub ideology of the three aforementioned groups. the progressives have moved on completely. you can say the democrats are a coalition party (labor, minorities, intellectuals, enviromentalists) as well although the interests are more closely aligned ideologically.
September 20, 200717 yr "...and when did you stop beating your wife?" When I remembered we didn't sign a prenup and it giving her way more leverage? Im not sure what that means, im sure it's witty and just flew over my head but I am definitely NOT from Jamestown. I am NOT a settler! Although it would definitely qualify me for financial aid. Maybe I'll look into a Russian mail-order bride. ...just observing that your "questions" were a pretty funny example of begging the question, that's all...and yeah, I was trying to be clever about it, but I definitely have trouble getting that across a lot of times!
September 20, 200717 yr 1. corporate pro business: vote R if you are rich 2. religious conservatives 3. libertarians (4. neocons) [5]. now defunct progressives ex. TR, to a much lesser extent Taft essentially group 1, a small percentage of america, votes their economic self interest (tough to blame them for that) and convinces group 2 to vote for the same party. group 3 goes along because the ideology of the party should be rooted in their views, but practically isn't. the neocons might either be a seperate group or a sub ideology of the three aforementioned groups. the progressives have moved on completely. 1 & 3 sort of overlap. And there are the "National Security Conservatives" , which overlap with 2 and maybe 4. you can say the democrats are a coalition party (labor, minorities, intellectuals, enviromentalists) as well although the interests are more closely aligned ideologically. Both partys are coalitions of sorts. There was a good book on this from the 1960s...James McGregror Burns..."The Deadlock of Democracy: Four Party Politics in America" Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority" (from the early 1970s) pretty much said the same thing about us politics being about shifting coaltions under the rubric of the two big partys.
September 27, 200717 yr I wouldn't say Republican, however, I lean right on economic issues, left on some other things. I'm for privatizing Social Security or setting up more private retirement accounts where individuals can pay money. I agree with Ron Paul on completely eliminating some major federal level departments -- ex. Dept of Homeland Security (State Dept. does many of the same things), Dept of Education,. I think the federal government should only do two things: make laws and insure federal infrastructure (Interstate Highways, etc) is properly funded and maintained. The individual state governments should handle most or all financial matters and funding in their respective states. I would like for the income tax to be eliminated all together. But since that is unlikely, I'm for a flat tax -- 10% pay rate for most incomes; below a poverty rate pay no taxes. I believe corporate welfare should be eliminated and limited for the individual (only for those who are permanently physically disabled). I'm all for private health savings accounts. However, I believe the military budget is bloated and should be cut in half. I think all US occupied military bases in other countries should be closed and the land turned over to those countries' governments. War should be used as a last option. I think the military's job should be to protect the country's border first and foremost and go to war if attacked; no more solving other countries' problems. I think the U.S. should only trade/do commerce with countries and thats it. I believe people should be able to marry whatever gender they choose. I think if a person chooses to have an abortion, no one should tell them they can't do so; No bans on smoking, trans fats, building of fast food restaurants in certain area, etc. The Patriot Act should be repealed. NAFTA, CAFTA should be repealed. I think church and politics shouldn't influence one another. That is all.
September 27, 200717 yr I'm A Republicrat, I mean a Demublican, I mean a Indepublicrat, I mean a Libpublindistcrat, I mean a Indigrepublicratarianist, Yeah thats it!!
September 27, 200717 yr I wouldn't say Republican, however, I lean right on economic issues, left on some other things. I'm for privatizing Social Security or setting up more private retirement accounts where individuals can pay money. The only way I'd agree wtih this is if the government makes it illegal to not have a retirement account. There are many Americans that don't do the right thing with their money and won't look out for their own future. If you walked around town and asked random people what a Roth IRA is, 8 out of 10 people probably couldn't define it. Yet they'll say they want privatized social security.
September 27, 200717 yr yea, socially I am an equal rights guy....but I dont think thats a liberal or conservative thing...its more of 'think outside what you were taught' people vs. close-minded people. i tend to be an free market guy who supports the war and who suports gay marriage.
September 27, 200717 yr I wouldn't say Republican, however, I lean right on economic issues, left on some other things. I'm for privatizing Social Security or setting up more private retirement accounts where individuals can pay money. The only way I'd agree with this is if the government makes it illegal to not have a retirement account. There are many Americans that don't do the right thing with their money and won't look out for their own future. If you walked around town and asked random people what a Roth IRA is, 8 out of 10 people probably couldn't define it. Yet they'll say they want privatized social security. The government shouldn't make it illegal. The option is up to the individual. I think people are smart enough to make their on decisions about their money if given the chance. If they screw up thats their problem. With Social Security soon to crash and burn, people better (but should have been already) start saving for themselves instead of waiting for the inefficient government to do it for them.
September 27, 200717 yr ^ ... The inefficient government that has successfully leveraged taxes to ensure retirement money for 72 years? The same inefficient government that set this system up after the private market failed dramatically, saw the vast majority of Americans cashing in their investments for pennies on the dollar and people living on roadsides? I'm all for increased efficiency, effectiveness and equity in government programs but to automatically assume that the private market will do a better job than the government in ensuring that we don't have senior citizens eating cat food, well, in the absence of substantive data, I think that argument's a little simplistic.
September 27, 200717 yr So the government is everybody's mommy telling them what to do with their money, what doctors to go see, and where to live and go to school? We need to get away from the nanny state mentality. This bridges on socialism.
September 27, 200717 yr I wouldn't say Republican, however, I lean right on economic issues, left on some other things. I'm for privatizing Social Security or setting up more private retirement accounts where individuals can pay money. The only way I'd agree with this is if the government makes it illegal to not have a retirement account. There are many Americans that don't do the right thing with their money and won't look out for their own future. If you walked around town and asked random people what a Roth IRA is, 8 out of 10 people probably couldn't define it. Yet they'll say they want privatized social security. The government shouldn't make it illegal. The option is up to the individual. I think people are smart enough to make their on decisions about their money if given the chance. If they screw up thats their problem. With Social Security soon to crash and burn, people better (but should have been already) start saving for themselves instead of waiting for the inefficient government to do it for them. I don't think social security is going anywhere as long as babyboomers are voting in large numbers. Unfortunately we're going to see a big decrease in our quality of life as there will be a smaller percentage of people "producing" and more people that are dependant on those that are producing. In a perfect world, everyone would set up retirement accounts..but they won't. Do you honestly believe they will? People that live paycheck to paycheck will make steady contributions to a retirement account? They won't be tempted to withdraw the money early and pay tax and penalities? If they do pay penalties, is that good for the people or just good for the banks? I'm sure there are plenty of people with nice 401k packages and have employers matching their contributions but the deal isn't as sweet for others and you're basically asking for people to withdraw early (and pay penalties). People who voluntarily get private retirement accounts are generally smarter with money. I guess my bias is based on me coming from a poor family and seeing people blow through retirement accounts. When people aren't used to having money, they don't know what they're supposed to be doing iwth it. Look at all the broke lottery winners. Which brings me to another point. "Lottery is a tax on the stupid". Truer words ever spoken.
September 27, 200717 yr So the government is everybody's mommy telling them what to do with their money, what doctors to go see, and where to live and go to school? We need to get away from the nanny state mentality. This bridges on socialism. From: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1646771 Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life. S Cereseto and H Waitzkin Abstract This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. The World Bank was the principal source of statistical data for 123 countries (97 per cent of the world's population). PQL variables included: indicators of health, health services, and nutrition (infant mortality rate, child death rate, life expectancy, population per physician, population per nursing person, and daily per capita calorie supply); measures of education (adult literacy rate, enrollment in secondary education, and enrollment in higher education); and a composite PQL index. Capitalist countries fell across the entire range of economic development (measured by gross national product per capita), while the socialist countries appeared at the low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income levels. All PQL measures improved as economic development increased. In 28 of 30 comparisons between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL (Physical Quality of Life) outcomes.
September 27, 200717 yr I don't care where other capitalist countries turned out in the comparisons. How did the US compare to countries of similar level of economic development?
September 27, 200717 yr GDP isn't always an accurate way to measure quality of life. Looking strictly at GDP, Luxembourg would be the richest country per capita but its really because it's where we house our debt. Their banking industry is very inviting because of political stability and low taxes but their economy isn't very diverse; they have little industrial base. It's also believed oil exporters use Luxemborg as a front to hide their wealth and invest. It's also misleading to compare a big country like the U.S. to individual small Euro nations. Luxembourg for example has less than half a million people. Why don't we compare Ohio to Switzerland or California to France, etc? Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate in the U.S. but they definitely don't have the quality of life of most U.S. states.
September 27, 200717 yr ^I'm not sure what you're getting at... I didn't mention GDP anywhere in any of my posts. I was referencing the study to compares countries of similar economic DEVELOPMENT in their PQL, not their GDP.
September 27, 200717 yr I was talking about the article Kingfish posted. I didn't even see your post when I wrote that.
September 27, 200717 yr Why is it that the "religious" right promotes policies that are detrimental to the environment and detrimental to poor people?! It's also ironic that rednecks (not to be confused with white-trash; rednecks work hard) routinely vote for a party that F$!ks them! I think you'll find your answer right here: Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday. <snip> http://www.physorg.com/news108562207.html more of the same "either you are a D or an R, Red or Blue State" bullcrap"!
September 27, 200717 yr So the government is everybody's mommy telling them what to do with their money, what doctors to go see, and where to live and go to school? We need to get away from the nanny state mentality. This bridges on socialism. I am actually trying to find a dentist with my private insurance and they are telling me which doctors I can see.
September 27, 200717 yr ^ You have the "HealthCare ChoicesTM" plan, don't you. ^^ No, it's one experiment attempting to describe behavior though scientific observation. It just happens to confirm that people are correct in identifying their own nature. ^^^ "Nanny State!" and "It's Socialism!" are thrown around like so much conservative confetti; I'm just trying to instill a little perspective here. Here's an interesting study that compares the U.S. to other more economically similar countries: http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s232/s232.html This study has a "small government is better" slant that a lot of people will find pleasing, but it attempts to identify an ideal level of per capita social spending. According to this study, nations that typically top PQL surveys are over-spending. How that money is spent is another issue. But I think the larger point of conflict in U.S. society is not so much the amount of money spent, but how equitably it is spent. Countries who "over-spend" tend to throw more money at the bottom of society, perhaps out of a sense of social responsibility. The U.S. tends to throw the most of its money at the middle class, according to this study, out of political responsibility. Me? I don't want big government or little government. I'm Goldilocks: I want just right government. In my book, that can only come from government that listens to its citizens and its neighbors and stays true to its roots and its long-term future. We've had a shortage of that in recent years.
September 27, 200717 yr I, personally, am all for small government. I am an advocate of reasonable and prudent social welfare programs aimed at assisting the poor get on a firm footing. I think a flat income tax is more responsible and that the current party system is flawed. All media outlets capitalize on our party system by pitting one group/opinion against another. I do not think we need Universal Health Care managed and supplied by the government. I do not think it is the governments job to legislate morality. Abortion decisions should be left up to doctor and patient. Doctors should not be required to perform the procedure. Marriage should not be the term used by the government for civil unions. Marriage is an institution of the church (generically used here to mean religions/beliefs), and as such, the church has to he right to recognize or not recognize gay marriages. Civil unions between two consenting adults should be allowed. I am a huge supporter of urban renewal. I would love to live in a downtown area. I'm all about mass transit as a service/basic infrastructure provided by the government. Since the gov decided they would be in the business of subsidizing cars and roadways, they should give equal opportunity to rail and other alternative forms of transportation. I think that privatization is the way to go with social security and that people should be responsible for themselves. If a person makes a decision-good or bad-they should live with the consequences. For certain circumstance, there are/should be assistance programs available provided by private groups and, in limited cases, the government to help people. I am a registered Republican. I hope this clears up what I stand for... in a political sense.
September 27, 200717 yr ^Good post. I could live with 95% of that world. To me, there are a few things wrong in America that need attention NOW. Most social ills are just symptoms of these diseases. -Personal accountability. Please get rid of the "it wasn't my fault" crowd. Instead, accept that you are - to a greater or lesser extent - responsible for everything that happens to you and look for a takeaway so you can make it happen again or avoid it in the future. -Entitlement. Nobody owes you anything. The insects and the lions have to catch their food everyday. Darwinian, I know - but Americans are WAY softer than they were, even 50 years ago. The government should have a VERY limited role in the redistribution of wealth. -Oligarchic Leadership. Also known as special Interest/private campaign finance. This has essentially created a state in which politicians are not only no longer responsible to voters but also legislate to the desires of large corporate donors. I am neither R or D. I don't know what purpose political parties serve. Enlighten me... Thoughts?
September 27, 200717 yr I was just going to say that I'm more libertarian... but, last i checked, there is no libertarian party in the US. I vote Republican because they are most aligned with my beliefs. I'll vote for Guiliani because he is best poised to beat Hillary.
September 27, 200717 yr ^Good post. I could live with 95% of that world. To me, there are a few things wrong in America that need attention NOW. Most social ills are just symptoms of these diseases. -Personal accountability. Please get rid of the "it wasn't my fault" crowd. Instead, accept that you are - to a greater or lesser extent - responsible for everything that happens to you and look for a takeaway so you can make it happen again or avoid it in the future. -Entitlement. Nobody owes you anything. The insects and the lions have to catch their food everyday. Darwinian, I know - but Americans are WAY softer than they were, even 50 years ago. The government should have a VERY limited role in the redistribution of wealth. -Oligarchic Leadership. Also known as special Interest/private campaign finance. This has essentially created a state in which politicians are not only no longer responsible to voters but also legislate to the desires of large corporate donors. I am neither R or D. I don't know what purpose political parties serve. Enlighten me... Thoughts? Sure, saying "everyone should take responsibility for their actions" is nice and all, but it is not, nor ever will be, realisitc. Just like some religious conservatives trying to combat teen pregnancy with abstinence only education.....you have to accept the fact that humans are not perfect and these perfect ideals will not work. Sure you try to teach them but you must accept that they will never totally take hold.
September 27, 200717 yr If everyone had the same income tax rate, with all other policies still in place, it would perpetuate the increasing gap between rich and poor even more. That is NOT good for our economy and not good for the well being of the majority of residents in America. Redistributing money to the poor ensures that a "meritocracy" exists where public and private firms allocate talent properly (because the lower classes have greater access to education and other resources that help them live up to their potential) and prevents us from turning into some f$%!ing growing lazy aristocracy. Some would argue it's too late for that. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet agree with me though! And yes, if/when I make hundreds of thousands a year I will happily be in an obnoxiously high tax bracket.
September 27, 200717 yr I was just going to say that I'm more libertarian... but, last i checked, there is no libertarian party in the US. I vote Republican because they are most aligned with my beliefs. I'll vote for Guiliani because he is best poised to beat Hillary. http://www.lp.org/ Imagine what would happen if we actually had candidates we could vote FOR. Here's an interesting experiment (don't let the Stephen Colbert poll scare you): http://www.unity08.com/
September 27, 200717 yr I think Colbert is hilarious... but to the survey results. Nearly half of the 2000 people who took the survey are 50-65!
September 27, 200717 yr Jon Stewart is a genius. Of of the top ten moments in television: [youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=" name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
September 28, 200717 yr ^ & ^^ You should both basically be voting Libertarian. I think I might be Libertarian as well. Which is who'll vote for in the Presidential election next year since none of the Republicans, maybe Paul, are decent.
September 28, 200717 yr ^^ Just put the code after the = (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8) [youtube=425,350]vmj6JADOZ-8
Create an account or sign in to comment