Pew research paper

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Meh... I wouldn't confuse total dissatisfaction with the current status of the R party and the current admin with a rejection of conservative ideals.

People are pissed off. I'm one of them. I'm actually giving some of the D candidates for prez consideration, something I never did before, because the current crop of Rs just sucks.

But that doesn't mean I don't still lean to the right and it doesn't mean I think conservatism is dead... All it means is that the current crop of "conservative" (HA) leaders is a sad, sick joke.

Interesting, I feel exactly the opposite. I feel that the current crop of D candidates is horrible, but Romney, for example, might get my vote. Still on the fence about that, don't know much about him. The rest DO suck.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why it is pointless to argue with you newly discovered right-wing "libertarians", stupid strawmen like bring stalinism into this.

You in over your head once again. Mixed market economies do not = stalinism.

Just answer the question if you are so in the know.
It is pointless to argue because you make some of the dumbest accusations and claims of anybody on this board. At least Dave doesnt take himself serious.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why it is pointless to argue with you newly discovered right-wing "libertarians", stupid strawmen like bring stalinism into this.

You in over your head once again. Mixed market economies do not = stalinism.

Just answer the question if you are so in the know.
It is pointless to argue because you make some of the dumbest accusations and claims of anybody on this board. At least Dave doesnt take himself serious.

Laissez-faire "liberalism" (or your idea of "libertarianism") is a quick path to feudalism dreamed up by a whacked out woman on a anti-communist trip looking for amnesty to be wanked over by fanbois who never had to hold down a crap job in their lives.

Yay for no worker protections and children slaving in factories and coal mines, go free market. :roll:

Use your head for once and you will realize your as much of an idealist as a commie.

I am not replying to any more wingnut market libertarian drivel, its as boring as debating a commie idealist and about as much based in reality -stay on topic.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why it is pointless to argue with you newly discovered right-wing "libertarians", stupid strawmen like bring stalinism into this.

You in over your head once again. Mixed market economies do not = stalinism.

Just answer the question if you are so in the know.
It is pointless to argue because you make some of the dumbest accusations and claims of anybody on this board. At least Dave doesnt take himself serious.

Laissez-faire "liberalism" (or your idea of "libertarianism") is a quick path to feudalism dreamed up by a whacked out woman on a anti-communist trip looking for amnesty to be wanked over by fanbois who never had to hold down a crap job in their lives.

Yay for no worker protections and children slaving in factories and coal mines, go free market. :roll:

Use your head for once and you will realize your as much of an idealouge as a commie.

Long stretch of your imagination.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Long stretch of your imagination.

Not very since you have made no effort to back up your accusations that I am wrong about the leaning of this forum.

Calling someone a stalinist is not very convincing, although I am sure you don't even have a clue what stalinism is anyhow, so I will leave you to your silly generalizations.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You are right in a way. That's the one good part about being on the left in terms of social issues... you always win in the end. (ie. society has become progressively more liberal over the centuries).

What I meant by it was that the issues that the right wing took as their own in the last several decades are seeing broad based declines in support.

I understood. I thought it best to emphasize that human evolution is not a war where the good guys defeat the bad guys, as what you can even see active in this thread. It is about the growth in human self-understanding and compassion, in my opinion.

Take just a simple example in regards to crime. The right wants to lock everybody away who steps out of line in a society whose rules they make and which they are at the moment the cream of, so to speak. The left sees that crime as a reaction to the injustice of the existing situation and calls for an amelioration of rather extreme repression. Some on the left understand that a change or increase in economic justice has some chance, also, to ameliorate the situation, a more sensible fraction of the left.

A pendulum can easily start to swing between the temptation to imprison and let go because neither is the answer and each has inherent evils of its own. The answers to such bipolarities is always a third way, the true road to human progress.

If you do not restrain a bad person they will act out their sickness. This is the truth of the right. If you punish a bad person harshly you will make him worse. This is the truth of the left.

What is needed is an understanding of the origin of evil and an approach that tackles that, a third way. You can tackle the social conditions that cause crime and make headway there and at the same time attempt to get at the psychological issues that cause criminal behavior, low self esteem, with people already on that path. All the while you have to maintain a balance of approach. You have to watch out for the con who will try to sucker you and not lose sight of your understanding of the true nobility of the human spirit because there are some who do play you for a fool.

We will slowly evolve toward compassion and understanding or we will go extinct.

My point is that the right and the left see truths which are integrated at a higher level of understanding. It is the integration that is progress not the swing to the right or left.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The right is not going down in flames. The right is becoming the left. Humanity is on a long slow crawl up and out of the slime.

Ive never agreed with anything Moon has ever said more than this.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

None of this should surprise you, people are indoctrinated early in life through the public school system that govt is good, govt is your savior, govt is your new god.

After generations of this and the constant attacks from the left people are simply succumbing to the left. The biggest proof of this pudding are the neo-cons who run the republican party. Big govt, big spenders is all they are. The true conservatives are being run out of the conservative party. The options are now democrat left, or democrat lite.

While you can gloat please realize at some point the left values you so admire will hit critical mass and like all major left leaning states in the past, massive amounts of opppresion will happen with a huge gap between rich(in this case political elites) and poor(common folk). If you dont believe me, simply view the last 40 years of govt expansion and how every week a new report comes out showing the gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever.

So now the Liberal Education System is rearing its attacking again? How many more Far Reaching Liberal Conspiricies will we hear about today? Is The Liberal Media helping it along? What about the Liberal Scientists? Are they going to factor in somehow? That seems unlikely. It's been clear for quite some time that the largest determinant of a child's political (and religious, etc. etc.) beliefs is those of the child's parents.

Not only that, but your idea on how government expansion leads to greater income disparity is also false. The highest income disparity the US has seen took place in 1928, the heyday of capitalism run amok. In 1928 the amount of all reported income going to the top 10% was 49.3%, it decreased to about 33% by the end of the 1970's, after which it again began the climb that leads us to where we are today. Considering the period between 1928 and the late 70's was the period of greatest government involvement in income equality, followed by a period of governmental disengagement and deregulation, the facts seem to directly contradict your assertion. In addition, if large governments lead to income inequality then why are many of the countries with the most equitable distribution of income in the large government states of Europe?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

You don't see many europeans post here as the tone here is far out of whack with what is mainstream leftist in the rest of the world, you just gotta shake your head sometimes at the US right of center bias that does a poor job of being "centrist".

I would say that European mainstream leftism is one that embraces ultra far-right ideals on racism, immigration, etc. issues. Probably not a uniform point of view across the world.

Also, Europeans are not the rest of the world (even though I suspect you may like that).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

None of this should surprise you, people are indoctrinated early in life through the public school system that govt is good, govt is your savior, govt is your new god.

After generations of this and the constant attacks from the left people are simply succumbing to the left. The biggest proof of this pudding are the neo-cons who run the republican party. Big govt, big spenders is all they are. The true conservatives are being run out of the conservative party. The options are now democrat left, or democrat lite.

While you can gloat please realize at some point the left values you so admire will hit critical mass and like all major left leaning states in the past, massive amounts of opppresion will happen with a huge gap between rich(in this case political elites) and poor(common folk). If you dont believe me, simply view the last 40 years of govt expansion and how every week a new report comes out showing the gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever.

So now the Liberal Education System is rearing its attacking again? How many more Far Reaching Liberal Conspiricies will we hear about today? Is The Liberal Media helping it along? What about the Liberal Scientists? Are they going to factor in somehow? That seems unlikely. It's been clear for quite some time that the largest determinant of a child's political (and religious, etc. etc.) beliefs is those of the child's parents.

You'd have to be deaf dumb and blind to not read the liberal press on a daily basis and not see a common theme which is more and bigger govt. Who touts the line for the techers unions when they are looking for more money?

Parents rights have been eaten away by the state for decades. It has got to the point now where parents expect the state to take care of their kids.(early education, govt funded child care, govt provided daycare ect ect). This brings us back to my orginal point about indoctrination.

Not only that, but your idea on how government expansion leads to greater income disparity is also false. The highest income disparity the US has seen took place in 1928, the heyday of capitalism run amok. In 1928 the amount of all reported income going to the top 10% was 49.3%, it decreased to about 33% by the end of the 1970's, after which it again began the climb that leads us to where we are today. Considering the period between 1928 and the late 70's was the period of greatest government involvement in income equality, followed by a period of governmental disengagement and deregulation, the facts seem to directly contradict your assertion. In addition, if large governments lead to income inequality then why are many of the countries with the most equitable distribution of income in the large government states of Europe?

Are you kidding me? Our federal budget has grown more than 50% in the last 6 years alone. Our federal and state govts have ballooned over the past 40 years. So it isnt surprising we are seeing the income gap wider than ever. btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

Continue telling yourself large never ending govt is the answer. One day when it tells you how high to jump, then you can wonder how it came to be.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?


Also, the media isn't liberal... get over it. And how did you manage to get teacher's unions into this? Pinning you down to a single argument seems to require an almost Mr. Miyagi catching-the-fly-with-chopsticks level of coordination.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?

. . .

Also the military-industrial complex, with it's roots in WWII and coming of age in the fifties and early sixties, is a classic example of a welfare state-but that was for the fat cats.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?

. . .

Also the military-industrial complex, with it's roots in WWII and coming of age in the fifties and early sixties, is a classic example of a welfare state-but that was for the fat cats.

Dead on correct, instead of government serving the people and communitys with our treasury to help us as citizens it started serving the elites banking off of endless war. Just what Republican President Eisenhower warned of, and folks like Genx I am sure are making him spin in his grave.

Now we have a giant socialist nightmare of a welfare state in the form of a military and contractors with fauxnews and our military industry owned media feeding the machine with our lives.

 

[theeedude]

I think the religious right is turning people off from religion.

 

[ajf3]

So we'll be France in a few decades? Glad that I'll have earned my living and retired by then... sucks for the kids though.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's long, but worth the read.

In short this report shows that in nearly every meaningful area, the right is losing... and in some cases the loss is catastrophic. People who identify themselves as Republicans are in steep decline, secularism is on the rise, support for wars, etc has gone into the toilet, people are now more supportive of using the government to help the less fortunate, the list goes on and on.

What I found most interesting about this was that I remember some of the right wing people on here complaining that this board was very liberal. From looking at this report... it looks to me that if anything this board may be slightly to the right of center of what America believes. (lots of libertarians floating around here) I wonder if those who defend these positions on here realize just how alone you are becoming... and just how little of America now shares these beliefs.

I'm really not trying to gloat here (although I do admit that it brings me a lot of personal satisfaction to see the right going down in flames), but I think that this report here shows a right wing in America in retreat on nearly every issue. It appears that the rightward swing America had been enduring since the 80's reached its peak in 2000 or so, and has been falling back ever since.

I've never really seen this board as very liberal in the modern sense.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: eskimospy
it looks to me that if anything this board may be slightly to the right of center of what America believes. (lots of libertarians floating around here)

This board has always been right of center, what the more rabid righties don't like is that people here push back openly, and any visible opinion that contradicts theirs means total bias, it's the victim game they love to play.

Are you serious? Every poll ever conducted on this forum leans at least 60/40 left. ATOT seems to lean right, but P&N? :laugh:

You need to reverse your left/right comparison.

most of the "liberal" people on this board are libertarian.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?


Also, the media isn't liberal... get over it. And how did you manage to get teacher's unions into this? Pinning you down to a single argument seems to require an almost Mr. Miyagi catching-the-fly-with-chopsticks level of coordination.

Stick with me, one of the topics we were discussing is public education no?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: eskimospy
it looks to me that if anything this board may be slightly to the right of center of what America believes. (lots of libertarians floating around here)

This board has always been right of center, what the more rabid righties don't like is that people here push back openly, and any visible opinion that contradicts theirs means total bias, it's the victim game they love to play.

I consider myself somewhat unashamedly left of center and this forum is usually far too right compared to other open debate forums with both sides represented.

Also the more power they lose the more the righties get desperate and love to cry victim of bias, not realizing it is they who are being left behind with the times, not that there is any nefarious liberal conspiracy.

Great comedy, however considering the comedian that statement doesnt surprise me. I think Stalin is right of old Steep.

Last i checked government spending as a share of gdp has been falling. I could be wrong though.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

No ****** sherlock, now what does that to do with classic liberalism?

Please, save the ayn rand cultist stuff for your schoolyard economist wannabe friends, not this thread.

You made the claims, answer the question. What does corporatism, Facism, big govt, and collectivism have to do with Classic Liberalism?

It is amazing how you try to lump two things diametrically opposed to each other into the same group.

It must be part of your me vs them attitude. Anybody not hell bent on Stalinism is one in the same.

there is surtainly the point that socialism is not stalinism either, and to pass it off as such is to pass off classic liberalism as fascism.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Stick with me, one of the topics we were discussing is public education no?

Uhmmm.... I guess. The real topic of the thread was the broad based decline in support for conservatism as it is popularly known today. (no, we don't need to have the argument about modern conservatism vs. real conservatism). You came out with a bunch of wrong facts about it and so I was setting things straight.

I'd be more interested to see why people think this is happening, and if the people on here who claimed that this board was left leaning still think so in light of those figures then have another stupid thread whining about unions.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The right is not going down in flames. The right is becoming the left. Humanity is on a long slow crawl up and out of the slime.

I think that we have just been floundering in the slime and are continuing to do so. The right holds some good moral ideas and the left holds some good moral ideas and both parties refuse to hold the others good moral ideas. It is a lose-lose situation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The right is not going down in flames. The right is becoming the left. Humanity is on a long slow crawl up and out of the slime.

I think that we have just been floundering in the slime and are continuing to do so. The right holds some good moral ideas and the left holds some good moral ideas and both parties refuse to hold the others good moral ideas. It is a lose-lose situation.

If you will read my longer post you will see that it's not about parties but about consciousness. The right and the left hold good moral ideas about the same topic and argue as to who is more right. The point is that both are right about the same thing when seen from a higher perspective. There can be no progress on the level of left and right. Progress is in integrating opposites in higher understanding. That requires the development of human consciousness. That occurs not in politics but the heart. To learn is not to add something new, but to let go of what is illusion so one can see what really is. Letting go is the opposite of attachment to belief.

The world is going forward, I believe. But it is tremendously painful.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?

. . .

Also the military-industrial complex, with it's roots in WWII and coming of age in the fifties and early sixties, is a classic example of a welfare state-but that was for the fat cats.

Dead on correct, instead of government serving the people and communitys with our treasury to help us as citizens it started serving the elites banking off of endless war. Just what Republican President Eisenhower warned of, and folks like Genx I am sure are making him spin in his grave.

Now we have a giant socialist nightmare of a welfare state in the form of a military and contractors with fauxnews and our military industry owned media feeding the machine with our lives.

Wasn't Eisenhower who said the biggest threat to the nation was the gov't basically getting in bed with military contractors?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw govt didnt get involved in a big way until after Johnsons great society in 1965.

!!?!!?!!? The New Deal !?!?!!?!?

. . .

Also the military-industrial complex, with it's roots in WWII and coming of age in the fifties and early sixties, is a classic example of a welfare state-but that was for the fat cats.

Dead on correct, instead of government serving the people and communitys with our treasury to help us as citizens it started serving the elites banking off of endless war. Just what Republican President Eisenhower warned of, and folks like Genx I am sure are making him spin in his grave.

Now we have a giant socialist nightmare of a welfare state in the form of a military and contractors with fauxnews and our military industry owned media feeding the machine with our lives.

Wasn't Eisenhower who said the biggest threat to the nation was the gov't basically getting in bed with military contractors?

Yes, as a 5 Star general and a President his gave us a grave warning.

A must see President Eisenhower's warning in his Farewell Speech. (Video)

The last true Republican president