POLL: Just to see where everyone stands on Bush

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
WHat size chunk is that? FYI my Funda Mental Case Bitch Sister is a Church Going Conservative who sits home on her fat ass collecting welfare.

As for Clinton being a Liberal? WTF, He out Republicaned the Republicans when he was in office. The only difference between him and his Republican Cohorts is that he fscked women, not his constiuents.

sarcasm noun
the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in an amusing way:

Originally posted by: HJD1
I am certain that the Universities I went to had a much lower % than you indicated... And UCSD has very few.. so the Universities in the South must be nearly 100%.
Difficult to measure educated based on which social philosophy they subscribe to... On a guess, however, I opt for the Liberal one... because he learned what he was taught... So to speak.

LMFAO, how hard is it to learn what you are taught? It's much easier to just repeat what you are told. All you have to do is memorize. You don't have to think at all.
Hey guys, HJD1 has given us the answer we were all wondering about:
Conservatives are people who just can't seem to learn what they are taught. Dammit Jimmy, cant you get it through your thick head, Republicans are evil. Write that on the board 500 times and you'll be educated.

Ahhh, the nice simple life of a sheep.

Heres an interesting article related to UCSD, where there are very few liberal professors of course.

Another interesting link

And some of the details from that same survey:

?At the University of Maryland, of the 69 professors whose political affiliations were located, 59 were registered as Democrats and 10 as Republicans. Out of a sample of 37 sociology professors, 34 were Democrats. Of 20 political science professors, 17 were Democrats. Of 12 economics professors, eight were Democrats.
?At the University of Colorado at Boulder, 116 of the professors whose party registrations could be established were Democrats and five were Republicans. Out of a sample of 37 professors who teach English, none were Republicans. Out of a sample of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Out of 19 political science professors, two were Republican.
?At Brown University, 54 professors whose political affiliations showed up in primary registrations last year were Democrats, compared with three Republicans. Out of 10 English professors, none was Republican. Of 17 history professors, none was Republican. Out of seven political science professors, none was Republican. Of eight sociology professors, none was Republican. Out of six economics professors, one was Republican. Of nine engineering professors, two were Republican.
?At Harvard University, of the 52 professors whose affiliations were found, 50 were registered Democrats and two were Republicans. Of 15 sociology professors, none was Republicans. Out of 16 economics professors, one was Republican. Of 21 political science professors, one was Republican.
?At Penn State University, 59 professors from the arts and sciences department were registered Democrats and 10 were Republicans. Out of 37 sociology professors, 34 were Democrats. Of 20 political science professors, 17 were Democrats. Out of 12 economics professors, eight were Democrats.
?At the University of California at Santa Barbara, a sample of 72 arts and sciences professors were registered Democrats and one was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 21 English professors, none was Republican. Out of 29 history professors, one was Republican. Of 13 political science professors, none was Republican, and out of eight journalism professors, none was Republican.
?At the University of Texas at Austin, of the 109 professors whose political affiliations were found, 94 were Democrats and 15 were Republicans. Out of six philosophy professors, one was Republican. Of 19 political science professors, 15 were Democrats. Out of 14 history professors, two were Republicans. Out of 42 English professors, 35 were Democrats.

Does Texas count as the south?
I mean after all, Bush is from Texas, and as one brilliant AT forums member put it,
all they know how to do in Texas is drive pickups and execute people.

There have been other studies and surveys. Now maybe it's not 90%, but it is quite obvious from the surveys, and in fact, from any non-liberal who has been to college, that the vast majority of college professors are liberal and conservative professors are very hard to find.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: oLLie
I am certain that the Universities I went to had a much lower % than you indicated... And UCSD has very few.. so the Universities in the South must be nearly 100%.
Difficult to measure educated based on which social philosophy they subscribe to... On a guess, however, I opt for the Liberal one... because he learned what he was taught... So to speak.

I agree that the 90% statistic was most likely exaggerated. I'm not sure how you can say that UCSD has "very few" unless you have taken a course from every professor there or have seen a political poll of the faculty. In the social sciences and liberal arts spheres of my school (UCI), I would not be surprised if a large majority was liberal. Let me ask you the same question: do you believe in the liberal arts and social sciences spheres of UCSD, most faculty is liberal? It is irrelevant if the faculty you came into contact with were not liberal if the subject matter was outside of the social arts... because it's not very often that my engineering, math, computer science teacher discusses political viewpoints with me. It is very common for social arts faculty to discuss these views, though. As for your claim that a Liberal is more educated because "he learned what he was taught", I don't believe you made your case very well. It seems more logical to me that he merely regurgitated what was indoctrinated in him. Perhaps you could explain again why a liberal is more intelligent than a conservative without coming off as elitist.

The last shall be first... One presumes the student ought to "regurgitate" with sufficient clarity so as to be graded consistant with that effort... To continue to stand for that concept after two years of freedom is indicative of superior intellect.... it is axiomatic.
I AM an elitist... elite... and humbled by your suggestive notice.
Regarding UCSD.... When you listen to a Prof. lecture don't always assume he or she subscribes to the political philosophy discussed or proffered or propounded.. If you speak of Mary Francis Berry perhaps... but, not every one... Now then, The sciences do have political and therefore, social over or under tones... economics, or any business course may. Engineering and Math may not follow the aforementioned but, then engineers are often ESTJ's and unlikely to grasp for the same straw as say an Economist.
When I went to school (college) (undergraduate) (way back east) (a long time ago) I thought to be anything but a fiscal conservative and social liberal was anti moral-anti american and I still do.


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote by Shanti

LMFAO, how hard is it to learn what you are taught? It's much easier to just repeat what you are told. All you have to do is memorize. You don't have to think at all.
Hey guys, HJD1 has given us the answer we were all wondering about:
Conservatives are people who just can't seem to learn what they are taught. Dammit Jimmy, cant you get it through your thick head, Republicans are evil. Write that on the board 500 times and you'll be educated.

Ahhh, the nice simple life of a sheep.



There have been other studies and surveys. Now maybe it's not 90%, but it is quite obvious from the surveys, and in fact, from any non-liberal who has been to college, that the vast majority of college professors are liberal and conservative professors are very hard to find.[/quote]

Statistically speaking, one might conclude that Liberals educate better and conservatives are ashamed.
As a registered republican I secret myself away as often as is possible or perhaps it is because I am an INFJ.. hard to tell..... Just yesterday I was having coffee with all my friend at starbucks when the topic of economics came up. I was hard pressed to decide which side I should lead the bleeting sheep toward... And he did say "Jimmy... in my pocket I've a dollar forty.... I work hard but can't find enough to pay the medical bills and live... damm the republicans... " He can't be argued with... because he has degrees from the univeristy of hard knocks where reality is reality and he remembers who said what and who did what... he sees it in his pocket.















 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
2
0
Some problems with Bush and his economic decisions and plans,

First of all, just as this recession was caused by the downfall of the internet, Reagan had nothing to do with the 90's, a whole new sector of the economy was created and thats why the economy did well, Reagan and Bush sr. had nothing to do with that.

Second, if you don't think the economy is absolutly horrible right now you are blind, and if you think its going to get better with some tax cuts you are blind. Nearly every major city and state are cutting jobs left and right. The governments absurd spending has left the states high and dry in their time of need. Every time the security level raises to orange states have to spend millions more on security, with the government not giving them any money for this. Most state economies are doing horrible and they have to make certain decisions to meet their budgets, cut jobs or raise taxes.

So heres the situation, Bush's tax plan goes through. States, in order to meet their budget, raise taxes and/or increase unemployment. Now, you just lost your job, and your state taxes have increased, but thank God Bush gave you an extra $300 to stimulate the economy, wow, it almost might work.

here some articles
Dividend problems


Increased Unemployment helps the economy because...?


More stuff


More
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Some problems with Bush and his economic decisions and plans,

First of all, just as this recession was caused by the downfall of the internet, Reagan had nothing to do with the 90's, a whole new sector of the economy was created and thats why the economy did well, Reagan and Bush sr. had nothing to do with that.

Second, if you don't think the economy is absolutly horrible right now you are blind, and if you think its going to get better with some tax cuts you are blind. Nearly every major city and state are cutting jobs left and right. The governments absurd spending has left the states high and dry in their time of need. Every time the security level raises to orange states have to spend millions more on security, with the government not giving them any money for this. Most state economies are doing horrible and they have to make certain decisions to meet their budgets, cut jobs or raise taxes.

So heres the situation, Bush's tax plan goes through. States, in order to meet their budget, raise taxes and/or increase unemployment. Now, you just lost your job, and your state taxes have increased, but thank God Bush gave you an extra $300 to stimulate the economy, wow, it almost might work.

here some articles
Dividend problems


Increased Unemployment helps the economy because...?


More stuff


More

Ummm, maybe the states should stop spending more than they have.
Are you proposing they raise taxes?
Yeah, times are tough now so let's take more of the people's money. Yeah, thats the ticket. That'll help get the economy going.

A state can reduce spending without cutting a ton of jobs. Do you have any idea how much state's spend on non-essential programs? There is a ton of money spent on "nice" programs that are not needed. yeah, they are nice to have, but when times are tough, you gotta cut out the luxury items.
I live in Oregon and we have major budget problems. But you better believe we still have liberal representatives pushing for funding for things like light rail systems in the Portland metro area. And our department of transportation keeps getting more money for new bike paths. And that's just a couple of "pet projects" we are wasting money on while our schools are cutting days. We have a state employee retirement system where the average retiree will get 105% of what they made while they are working. Some will get up to 200% of what they made. Show me anywhere in private industry where someone gets that kind of package. There is plenty of government waste that can be cut without firing a bunch of people.
Are bike paths and light rail nice to have? Yes.
Are they something we should be spending money on when our politicans claim there isn't enough money for schools and police? No.

You do realize that cutting taxes actually tends to raise the amount of tax revenue the government brings in right?
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: etech
LilBlinbBlahIce

Which of the candidates in the last Presidential election flunked out of divinity school?


LilBlinbBlahIce, you must have missed my question. It's fairly short and simple and since you are so very concerned about religion and the perception of intelligence you should be interested in the answer.

Do you know who it was?

Sorry about that. Yes it was Gore, and I never, ever claimed that he would have been a good president, nor did I vote for him. He is just as stupid as Bush is. Didn't the guy claim to invent the Internet? I know it was probably taken out of context, but I did get a good laugh out of it. As you may have read in my other threads, I supported and voted for Bush, albeit for foolish and simple reasons, basically because my parents supported him and his tax cuts. I did not know much about politics back then. It might have only been three years ago, but I am a lot older and wiser now. You can learn a lot in three years if you start caring about the issues on hand. Anyway, if the same election happened today, I would probably abstain.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote

You do realize that cutting taxes actually tends to raise the amount of tax revenue the government brings in right?[/quote]

Laffer's curve does not work at the current level of taxation.. when it was marginal 80% perhaps and with an unemployment consideration.
Target tax credits to sectors that need it to stimulate supply side thinking coupled with demand side confidence and you may have a positive outcome... but to give a tax cut willy nilly to the upper bracket simply provides more securities investment... who is going to invest in creating more jobs when the result is lower bottom line and inventory (from the mfg. that is left) build or cut prices and lose more... less tax to be paid but, corps only fund 7% of revenue collected by the government...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
If IQ were the issue, there is no doubt most of the people who call him a moron would be right.

I guantee you Bush is smarter than 95% of the population. His problem stems from being born to the bank, a fraternity boy, and generally never having to work for anything until he hit about 35 and realised he was becoming one of those rich boys you hear about who dies of a cocain OD and is a disgrace to his old money family. So some of his refinment like spelling, vocabulary, and critical thinking skills, and working with others; which are all learned behavior are lacking because he never had to learn them to succeed.

He is arrogant because he always was above the rabble. I can't blame him for that. But true christianity may help him:)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Quote

Ummm, maybe the states should stop spending more than they have.
Are you proposing they raise taxes?
Yeah, times are tough now so let's take more of the people's money. Yeah, thats the ticket. That'll help get the economy going.

A state can reduce spending without cutting a ton of jobs. Do you have any idea how much state's spend on non-essential programs? There is a ton of money spent on "nice" programs that are not needed. yeah, they are nice to have, but when times are tough, you gotta cut out the luxury items.
I live in Oregon and we have major budget problems. But you better believe we still have liberal representatives pushing for funding for things like light rail systems in the Portland metro area. And our department of transportation keeps getting more money for new bike paths. And that's just a couple of "pet projects" we are wasting money on while our schools are cutting days. We have a state employee retirement system where the average retiree will get 105% of what they made while they are working. Some will get up to 200% of what they made. Show me anywhere in private industry where someone gets that kind of package. There is plenty of government waste that can be cut without firing a bunch of people.
Are bike paths and light rail nice to have? Yes.
Are they something we should be spending money on when our politicans claim there isn't enough money for schools and police? No.

You do realize that cutting taxes actually tends to raise the amount of tax revenue the government brings in right?[/quote]

Target spending by government is good if they hit the target... Viz; $100,000 contract to build a bike path requires bodies to do the work... they are not on unemployment, they pay some tax back in, they purchase goods and services from entities that hire bodies to provide those goods and services etc.. at the end of the day the revenue realized by the government is greater than if they didn't let the contract. That excess funds the social programs. When so many are out of work and "draining the coffers" they provide some economic stimulus however, the trickle around affect does not provide any excess... hence the issue of todays economy. Simply too many unemployed.... Federal tax policy must be directed to remedy this... not a Reagan economic policy but, rather, a more FDR demand side policy will be best suited in the current condition.
 

rickon66

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,823
15
81
Winston Churchill said something to the effect that if you are not a liberal in your youth, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative in your later years, you have no brain. Winston Churchill was a very wise man. I have lived long enough (54+) years to have experienced this transformation. Most of my friends and co-workers are also much more conservative than they were earlier in life.

LilBinbBlahIce-You said that President Bush obviously has a low IQ because he is not a polished public speaker. There is no correlation between IQ and the ability to give a polished speech or presentation. Some of the most brilliant people I have ever encountered have not been great at public speaking, while some of the dumbest folks can sound brilliant in front of a camera or audience.


 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Sorry about that. Yes it was Gore, and I never, ever claimed that he would have been a good president, nor did I vote for him. He is just as stupid as Bush is.

It seems like you are smarter than everyone. Maybe you should have run for president.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,989
10
81
I do not know if he was elected fairly (does anybody REALLY know?), and I am divided on some domestic issues, but he is our President.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: rickon66
Winston Churchill said something to the effect that if you are not a liberal in your youth, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative in your later years, you have no brain. Winston Churchill was a very wise man. I have lived long enough (54+) years to have experienced this transformation. Most of my friends and co-workers are also much more conservative than they were earlier in life.

LilBinbBlahIce-You said that President Bush obviously has a low IQ because he is not a polished public speaker. There is no correlation between IQ and the ability to give a polished speech or presentation. Some of the most brilliant people I have ever encountered have not been great at public speaking, while some of the dumbest folks can sound brilliant in front of a camera or audience.


Being a conservative is bad for business: Just think about this quote and tell me you don't find it to be more accurate and meaningfull than Churchills musings. BTW I was just the opposite as you. I''m still pretty conservative socially, but I beleive in live and let live when it does'nt concern me and to help the less fortuate is our moral obligation for a civil society to exsist.

"Of course men should be charitable, because it is a duty and a
pleasure. But even as a matter of policy, if you possess no
higher incentive, you will find that the liberal man will
command patronage, while the sordid, uncharitable miser will be
avoided."- PT BARNUM imo a very wise man.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl

"Of course men should be charitable, because it is a duty and a
pleasure. But even as a matter of policy, if you possess no
higher incentive, you will find that the liberal man will
command patronage, while the sordid, uncharitable miser will be
avoided."- PT BARNUM imo a very wise man.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S.Lewis
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Carbonyl

"Of course men should be charitable, because it is a duty and a
pleasure. But even as a matter of policy, if you possess no
higher incentive, you will find that the liberal man will
command patronage, while the sordid, uncharitable miser will be
avoided."- PT BARNUM imo a very wise man.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S.Lewis


Highttrain, These two quotes can easily compliment one another. I see no conflict.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: Carbonyl

"Of course men should be charitable, because it is a duty and a
pleasure. But even as a matter of policy, if you possess no
higher incentive, you will find that the liberal man will
command patronage, while the sordid, uncharitable miser will be
avoided."- PT BARNUM imo a very wise man.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S.Lewis

Highttrain, These two quotes can easily compliment one another. I see no conflict.

Some people's idea of charity begins with their hand in another's pocket.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81

E tech, the national media mocks the term "compassionate conservativism" because REPUBICAN LEADERSHIP are hypocrites. Since the 80s the middle/upper midddle class and poors tax burden has grown by 76% while the top 1% , IMO those who can afford to be charitable, has decreased by about 50%. Sure everyone knows the rich top 1% pay the most tax, but lessening thier tax while increasing mine and yours is not fair. IMO.

Also, in the 50's the federal budget got 50% from corporate tax and 50% from individuals. Today it's 20-80. Are we better off as a whole? I would contend during the 50's it was easier to start a business and compete with the big boys on wall street and families lived better with just one income cause it was not taxed so much. The riches lifestyle has never changed. Well thier wealth has grown by 400% since 1980;)

Next they talk about a small government. All they have done is increase the size while saying they want the opposite. Just look at the presidents who grow the debt and those who reduced it. Now under control of the whole deal the republicans are running a 550 BILLION dollar defict this year. I know we make make a hundred excuses for this. But I can't in my personal life and niether can you;)

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Some people's idea of charity begins with their hand in another's pocket.

So you understand there has been a transfer of wealth in this country from the bottom 99% to the top 1%. Good, so whose policys are responsible for this?
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Some people's idea of charity begins with their hand in another's pocket.
So you understand there has been a transfer of wealth in this country from the bottom 99% to the top 1%.
Well that's a pretty vague statement so no I don't understand it. My point is that it isn't your charity unless you're paying for it. If you want to discuss the merits of a progressive tax structure, I'm not really interested. It gives me a case of the Zzzzzzzzzzzz ;)
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Carbonyl

E tech, the national media mocks the term "compassionate conservativism" because REPUBICAN LEADERSHIP are hypocrites. Since the 80s the middle/upper midddle class and poors tax burden has grown by 76% while the top 1% , IMO those who can afford to be charitable, has decreased by about 50%. Sure everyone knows the rich top 1% pay the most tax, but lessening thier tax while increasing mine and yours is not fair. IMO.

Also, in the 50's the federal budget got 50% from corporate tax and 50% from individuals. Today it's 20-80. Are we better off as a whole? I would contend during the 50's it was easier to start a business and compete with the big boys on wall street and families lived better with just one income cause it was not taxed so much. The riches lifestyle has never changed. Well thier wealth has grown by 400% since 1980;)

Next they talk about a small government. All they have done is increase the size while saying they want the opposite. Just look at the presidents who grow the debt and those who reduced it. Now under control of the whole deal the republicans are running a 550 BILLION dollar defict this year. I know we make make a hundred excuses for this. But I can't in my personal life and niether can you;)

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

"Since the 80s the middle/upper midddle class and poors tax burden has grown by 76% while the top 1%"
So? that proves exactly nothing. Where did they start, what are the relative numbers and so forth. Nimbers by themselves can lie very well.

"Well thier wealth has grown by 400% since 1980;) "
Their wealth has grown by 400%. OMG that sounds terrible. How much has the wealth of the other classes grown? Include all of the numbers please!

" But I can't in my personal life and niether can you;)"

Actually you can go into debt. I did when I bought my house. Paid it off a few years ago. But to the point, I don't believe for a second that the government would be one bit smaller or the debt one penny less under the democrats so just voting for them won't solve any thing.

I could go find a quote bashing liberals but it would just be a waste of both of ours time. You'd find another one bashing conservatives and I'd find another one and so forth. Why don't we just leave the bashing quotes that don't mean anything out of this?



 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Sorry about that. Yes it was Gore, and I never, ever claimed that he would have been a good president, nor did I vote for him. He is just as stupid as Bush is.

It seems like you are smarter than everyone. Maybe you should have run for president.

Maybe I should have. But my daddy wasn't president, nor did I get a free ticket to an Ivy league school so I guess I am SOL.