People who laugh at others' misfortunes and think that what they have and what they are is all from them and them alone will be conservative. Those with the outlook of "there but for the grace of god/luck/whatever go I" and feel empathy for the less fortunate will be liberals.
I really like what you write, so I have to say this is a pretty disappointing statement from you. I don't see how a person couldn't be against total government control of everything, but a generous and empathetic person. The two simply aren't diametrically opposed. In fact, I don't see how we could be one of the most generous nations in the world if we were taxed at the level we would have to be to cover all these entitlements and the resultant bureaucracy to support them.
In the USA, the GOP consistently courts the stupid demographic, while the democrats have surrendered it.
Using ad-homs on your opponents won't make you correct. I could point to the idiots who lined in Detroit last year to get their "Obama money" and say they're an example of the Democratic voter, but I understand the difference between political ideology and those who are simply looking for a free ride. I also like to be right, so if I'm wrong there's no point in insulting those who disagree with me because we won't fix anything.
There is a direct correlation between welfare net and crime, the more effective the social welfare net the lower the crime rate.
You didn't provide any numbers, which hints at total bullshittery, but I'll bite. Because every nation has a different cultural makeup, comparisons can only be made within a nation and not between them. From when the "War on Poverty" was instituted by President Lyndon Johnson until 1991, total crime increased every year. It began to decrease in the 1990s, but then PLUMMETED after 1996 when welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton.
For the idiot right wingers who refuse to accept the blindingly obvious, for the numb nuts of the political spectrum simply compare Canada, to the US, to Mexico, of course right wingers will want to waffle on all kinds of bullshit rather than accept the obvious.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.
There are two politically-oriented definitions of "liberal", and that's not one of them.
Last time I checked, Gen X was composed of those born between 1962 and 1980. If you have a Journey song on your MP3 player that's not "Don't Stop Believin'", you're probably Gen X.
Since when was Myspace ever NOT Gen-Y oriented? My Gen-X brain had it filed under "Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany" since the first day I stumbled onto some 14 year old's putrid purple-and-pink theme, complete with animated-GIF hearts and skulls and two Avril Lavigne videos playing simultaneously.
The critical infrastruct on how computers "know" which IP address to get and how to get there has been gradually centralised over the last couple of decades in the name of efficiency and easy of management.
Because manually-downloaded HOSTS files and routing tables are disaster-proof?
You ask to shut down advertising servers. That's not really censorship, but it's shutting down business... you know, that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.
Social conservatism is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about shutting down the internet to save us from Ron Jeremy, although that would be a great idea.
Basically, the more people try to make this a democracy, the less free it becomes. Look at the full agenda of special interests who claim they're interested in "increasing democracy" for insight.
More like the majority of Americans are either clueless or good liars:
More than three-quarters (80%) of Americans regularly limit access to personal information posted to social media sites and make use of privacy settings; and 73% regularly update anti-virus software.
Now, do we really believe that most people have checked their security settings on Facebook and Myspace and regularly purchased updates for their virus scanner?
Maybe, but mostly I'm concerned that I won't be able to use the aurora borealis as a cover when I have a kitchen mishap making Upstate NY Steamed Hams.
He may not have. But is it fair to set a cap, then suddenly decide when a disaster happens that the cap should be removed? Those oil companies take risks with the presumption that the government will honor its own legislation limiting their liability. If you don't like the cap, fine-- but this kind of game is just another version of an ex post facto law. It's also pretty much like the laughable "debt ceiling"; Congress decides how many billions they want to spend, then vote to raise the debt ceiling so they can do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I really like what you write, so I have to say this is a pretty disappointing statement from you. I don't see how a person couldn't be against total government control of everything, but a generous and empathetic person. The two simply aren't diametrically opposed. In fact, I don't see how we could be one of the most generous nations in the world if we were taxed at the level we would have to be to cover all these entitlements and the resultant bureaucracy to support them.
Using ad-homs on your opponents won't make you correct. I could point to the idiots who lined in Detroit last year to get their "Obama money" and say they're an example of the Democratic voter, but I understand the difference between political ideology and those who are simply looking for a free ride. I also like to be right, so if I'm wrong there's no point in insulting those who disagree with me because we won't fix anything.
You didn't provide any numbers, which hints at total bullshittery, but I'll bite. Because every nation has a different cultural makeup, comparisons can only be made within a nation and not between them. From when the "War on Poverty" was instituted by President Lyndon Johnson until 1991, total crime increased every year. It began to decrease in the 1990s, but then PLUMMETED after 1996 when welfare reform was enacted under President Clinton.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Well, they already have the gangsters.
There are two politically-oriented definitions of "liberal", and that's not one of them.
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
Last time I checked, Gen X was composed of those born between 1962 and 1980. If you have a Journey song on your MP3 player that's not "Don't Stop Believin'", you're probably Gen X.
Since when was Myspace ever NOT Gen-Y oriented? My Gen-X brain had it filed under "Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany" since the first day I stumbled onto some 14 year old's putrid purple-and-pink theme, complete with animated-GIF hearts and skulls and two Avril Lavigne videos playing simultaneously.
Because manually-downloaded HOSTS files and routing tables are disaster-proof?
You ask to shut down advertising servers. That's not really censorship, but it's shutting down business... you know, that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.
Social conservatism is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about shutting down the internet to save us from Ron Jeremy, although that would be a great idea.
Basically, the more people try to make this a democracy, the less free it becomes. Look at the full agenda of special interests who claim they're interested in "increasing democracy" for insight.
Now, do we really believe that most people have checked their security settings on Facebook and Myspace and regularly purchased updates for their virus scanner?
I dunno, I think maybe it's the rhyming, melodious sound of "twat shot". Maybe "cunt punt"?
Maybe, but mostly I'm concerned that I won't be able to use the aurora borealis as a cover when I have a kitchen mishap making Upstate NY Steamed Hams.
What, are you some kind of rodentiphobic Christian fundie?
Didn't read the chart, eh?
I haven't heard such willful ignorance since the Iraqi Information Minister.
In Europe, their motto is, "Why vote for the lesser of two evils?"
He may not have. But is it fair to set a cap, then suddenly decide when a disaster happens that the cap should be removed? Those oil companies take risks with the presumption that the government will honor its own legislation limiting their liability. If you don't like the cap, fine-- but this kind of game is just another version of an ex post facto law. It's also pretty much like the laughable "debt ceiling"; Congress decides how many billions they want to spend, then vote to raise the debt ceiling so they can do it.
Have you seen where George Soros's money has been going?
When did we invade Pakistan?
You missed a few more than that. I wondered if you were making an ironic joke!
Stir-fried with scallions, perhaps? But what side dish and wine selection?