|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
11-03-04, 07:25 PM | #21 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
let's be real here...have you taken note of all the names conservatives have been called? have you read any of multi's posts? before you make a judgement call, check through the all the posts, you'll see that the tone is obviously set..and it was not, and is not, set by the conservatives on this board. Quote:
if you're wary of being accused of choosing sides...don't be. geez...i don't make a post without expecting spratts, knife or multi..etc. to twist, deflect and spin it into oblivion..in their unbridled condescending way of course. but, that's their way of debating.
__________________
Proud member of the Republican Attack Squad! |
||
11-03-04, 08:30 PM | #22 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Well, I appreciate everything, I'll try to be more vocal if you guys really want to read what I have to say. I'm not afraid of conflict, but I see little profit in it. I was defending Ramona, for his honesty and not necessarily his name calling. He's never called me names before in any of our discussions, I suppose he does it to you guys 'cause you guys do it to him. I don't know where it started, but it's really easy to stop if you try. So I'm not going to make accusations of childish behavior, you all know what needs to change.
The tone of these discussions is wildly organic and lacking in direction. Perhaps that is the cause of my vagaries, and it works to my advantage because I don't want to be associated with a party line, for that leads people to make assumptions about me. My goal, if I have one, is to provoke thought like Sinner, and hopefully change some minds once in a while. That's understandably very hard to do in this group. Yes, multi is a knee-jerk kind of guy, and he knows it too. But sometimes he's very open to new ideas, once you get past his inital reaction. I have observed that he's only stubborn when his intelligence is challenged. None of us here are easy to offend, we've got pretty thick hides, but to insult one's intelligence all you have to do is lump a person into a monolithic group like the political Left or Right and suddenly that person becomes very defensive. It's a failing of the political spectrum, it tries to be all encompassing but it's painfully inadequate when it comes to identifying individuals' beliefs. Basically, the words Liberal and Conservative are four letter words and I try not to see people that way. Choosing sides? I try to align myself with people who have good ideas, and everyone has good ones and bad ones. I won't agree with everyone all the time, but when I do I hope I'm not attacked by my allies because of past disagreements. It happens all too often, and it makes it impossible to move forward on any new subject. If I disagree with you once I'm not your enemy for life, am I? I tend toward conservativism, but I won't always choose that side because it's not always right. But for some reason I find the so called liberals on this board easier to identify with, but maybe that's just 'cause they're as nerdy as I am. On the other forums I think more like Jack, multi, and Ramona, but on this one I think more like Sinner, span, and scoobie. This has a lot more to do with personality than politics. I'm not gonna spout a lot of BS like 'All you need is love' and 'Can't we all just get along?' because it doesn't work like that. But I think open mindedness is much more fulfilling and entertaining. Hey, that's just me. You guys do what you want. |
11-03-04, 09:39 PM | #23 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
and i suspect that if you went back through political threads over the last year or two, you'd find the lion's share of the vitriol comes from the right. scoob's actually a bit of a lightweight in this area - go read some posts by our old friend Albed for some really choice venom. |
|
11-03-04, 10:02 PM | #24 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
|
Quote:
these are subjects that people feel much more strongly about. that’s why it was a good idea to create a separate political forum. Quote:
lol, i think kerry’s website needs a ‘lil help in that area….. ELECTION 2004 Kerry's website riddled with obscenities Official online page for Democrat loaded with F-word, S-word Posted: March 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com As public obscenity becomes a heated issue in the wake of this year's Super Bowl breast exposure, the leading Democrat in the race for the White House has obscenities laced throughout his official website. According to the Drudge Report, Kerry's homepage of JohnKerry.com is filled with expletives, "setting the standard for a new wave of 21st Century campaigning." Drudge typed in the F-word and the S-word into the search box on Kerry's site to yield some of the following results: "Bush f----- up Afghanistan ... Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did ... cutting all your f---ing legs off at the knees... Where the f--- is he?... scare the living s--- out of me... He has a pig-in-s--- grin on his face, he wanted to get into the s--- ... doesn't play s--- in my book ..." Other words some might find objectionable include "G--damn," "Christ," and "piss." A campaign source told Drudge the Kerry campaign site contains published material, and that the Massachusetts senator was not aware the expletives were posted on his own server. I think you'll see the offensive words removed," the source told Drudge. Similar foul language was not found on the official site to re-elect President Bush.
__________________
Proud member of the Republican Attack Squad! |
||
12-03-04, 01:33 AM | #25 | |
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Quote:
It cannot be said that college professors are never 'plucked out of the air' because many are; the average university is an oligarchical and fairly self governing body and can certainly preferentially matriculate its staff, so the presence of this trinity of characteristics is certainly not absolute. Nonetheless this Democratic label fairly glares from these stats, which you yourself provided. I would never argue that the majority of campuses in this country--and in fact, the world at large--are liberal environments. I would not argue that the placement of intent lies anywhere but squarely upon the faculties. I will also grant you that the form this liberalism takes is most often of a demeanor that could be called antiestablishment, and can even verge on pure personal spite for power and authority. The spoor of this species is also quite obvious, I'd wager it's a good bet that a high percentage were themselves in fraternities during or very near the disillusioned zeitgeist of Kent State and Vietnam. These, it would seem, are more subtle factors; eccentricities and generalities we can also add to the syllogism of "most teachers": most are intellectual, compassionate and liberal most often, and may have tendencies or agendas toward engendering social revolutions and political restructure much of the time. lol. Given. ...at least that certainly stands as a highly acceptable description of all the 'good teachers' I've known and been influenced by. "Influence. I'll have to examine my own word before I go on to examine your words of bias and indoctrination, which may be names for the same effect. I'd define the best infuential qualities to belong to the teachers I've known who have not only tolerated, but embraced, invigorated, nurtured, celebrated and even sanctified the individual idiosyncrasies of their student bodies--and have considered it all the more fortunate for this body when it is the more diverse. Any good teacher knows that higher learning is not spoonfed to the uninvested, and that the best investment is to engage the student as much as possible in participatory dialogue as pitted against as many views as possible--it's only then that a student takes responsibility for his own critical thinking while maintaining his individuality, a formula too integral to the very fabric of sanity to be undervalued. Now, frankly, to call this method of teaching bias is fine... perfectly acceptable... ...Until we're offered Patrick Henry College as some supposed example, in contrast, of an unbiased institution! PHC has every conceivable right to be exactly what it is in my opinion, but one cannot possible argue that it's unbiased while maintaining a straight face. So when I come to your conclusion that all these listed colleges have a liberal bias--and we'd have to agree that PHC has it's own kind of bias --it seems we can only proceed by asking what are the things each is biased against? I doubt if it's as clear cut as we might like to make it. Liberal colleges have courses on Evolution and Christianity and I doubt that PHC can entirely avoid the subject of Evolution in its curriculum just because it can be construed as contrary to Christianity. But we don't have to be screenwriters to visualize a significant difference in debating Christianity or Evolution among a group composed exclusively of young Republican WASPS with political aspirations (yes, I am picturing a room full of multiples of Micheal J. Fox as Alex, from Family Ties) and those same debates occuring in a group of mixed races, gays and straights, Christians and atheists, Democrats and Republicans... even if it is under the auspices of a liberal professor. These are exactly the kind of environments one finds in "liberal colleges," and again it's clear that they can be defined as more inclusive. This is all well and good. I'm not being critical of the existence PHC at all. I am critical of it from a personal standpoint, this is not I college in which I would like to matricualte personally. But there it is. Some people who want to go there can, and in the long run, so they have good ol' buddy ties--or at least have created a small demand for their students to get foot-in-the-door quasi-political government appointments or what-not--so what? Not terribly significant in the scheme of things. And certainly not the biggest fish in the pond, there are supergiant "conservative" universities in the sky of education that dwarf PHC. My own medium-sized hometown is host to a number of fairly prestigious Christian academies, not the least of which is Oral Roberts University. If you want to get crazy conservative, you can go all out and pick a military school, you'll even get to wear a uniform. It would be hysterical to find an embodiment of some great evil conspiritorial trend of the right in PHC, but I don't think anyone does. It's just noted that some of its intent is a bias toward exclusivity, just as some of the intent of the more common liberal college is bias toward inclusion. You are arguing for the right of an exclusive college to exist, and no one is arguing against them because there are and always have been exclusive schools. At bottom, it's all a question of supply and demand, as long as you can afford the education you desire I don't feel the need to stop anyone. Do you? The "favoritism" shown the students of PHC by those in certain circles of power, as insinuated by the original article, is another matter--yet still a question of supply and demand. What troubles some of us, I think, lol, is that the demand in those circles of official power should be what it is: the internal demand for a certain kind of predetermined religious morality in the halls of our government, the infrastructure of which is supposed to be philosophically as void as possible of the possibility of exerting that kind of influence outward. I'm not sure I would go so far as to even call it a "part of a disturbing trend" because no doubt mechanisms like it have probably been in place all along. But it's certainly not crazy to merely raise an eyebrow to it under this present administration which so clearly has its own religious agenda. The greater question is why anyone would be disturbed by religious influences since they are supposed to be inherently "good"--but many people have cast a wary eye on the historical record of this supposition--not the least of which were our founding fathers, themselves religious men, who came to this continent to escape the religious oppression and corruption that was inherent in a government that had no mechanisms for the separation of Church and State. I see no need to start rethinking the value of that observation. There's plenty of evidence where it leads. |
|
29-03-04, 10:40 PM | #26 | |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
The truth must be very painful for you to view it as venom. Perhaps it's an allergic reaction. Smoke some more pot and escape the pain knife. |
|
30-03-04, 06:56 AM | #27 | |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
Quote:
you don't call, you don't write |
|
30-03-04, 12:32 PM | #28 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
as a rule i have never come out with an expletive laced discription of any conservative here...until they try and turn the subject of the thread into a slagging match..witch is often more than 95% of the political threads here
if you can find a thread i have posted that is designed to bait the consevatives here into responding..and then throw insults at them for sharing their opinion i would be very suprised.. scoobie complains that left thinking people are condacending..LOL now that is a joke.. left thinking people want equality for others that is obvious and are always put in the light of whinging complainers..when ever they make a point to do with a question of unequality the right always justifies the unequality in those repetitive degrading and condacending arguments we hear so often around here.. whites over blacks straights over gays jews over arabs rich over poor coporations over small business anyway the insults are water off a ducks back thesedays..i dont see reall much point for them..but insult away..then when i snap back with something you can make out i only ever insult you.. |
30-03-04, 02:46 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
30-03-04, 04:54 PM | #30 | |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
dont know much about them..here is what i could find
Quote:
|
|
31-03-04, 06:28 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
31-03-04, 11:58 AM | #32 |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
multi it's like when bush got to go to yale ahead of better students, and he got to cut to the head of the queue for the national guard, and all the other legacy stuff he was given - because he's a white guy. except this tries to give poor non-whites a little chance too.
- js. |
31-03-04, 12:14 PM | #33 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
it's funny even many of those "poor non-whites" think it's a crap law that forces people to judge them not on their skills but on the color of their skin, last i heard that was discrimination. |
|
14-08-04, 07:14 AM | #34 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|