• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Study proves liberal profs discriminate

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
A CEO stated his personal opinion that has long been known to be a Christian is Pro family (not shocking) and that equals Bigotry?

You progressives take that make it into something it isn't and the witch hunt begins. Accept it backfires and they have there biggest sales day ever by leaps and bounds.

The level of HATE the other side showed was grotesque. And by Definition biggoted.


How many companies have come out pro gay marriage and had the same backlash? yea... Double standard. Aren't they Bigots as well?
A CEO stated his personal opinion in public.... which brought to the forefront the fact that his company had been funneling millions of dollars into anti gay groups for years.

I wonder what part of that previous sentence was the issue.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
The internet bubble popped in late 2000. That doesn't mean you have to let a housing bubble inflate for six additional years in order to counteract its effect.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here.
Yes, and in 2001 the housing bubble was already the largest in history. What do you think Bush should have done in 2001?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
A CEO stated his personal opinion in public.... which brought to the forefront the fact that his company had been funneling millions of dollars into anti gay groups for years.

I wonder what part of that previous sentence was the issue.
You mean anti gay marriage groups.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
Yes, and in 2001 the housing bubble was already the largest in history. What do you think Bush should have done in 2001?
Is this turning into another one of those arguments? I say 'Bush didn't need to inflate a housing bubble for his entire first term and half his second'. Your counterargument is 'what should Bush have done in only a single year of his first term? I don't know how to respond to that because it doesn't seem like you're capable of logically piecing an argument together.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Is this turning into another one of those arguments? I say 'Bush didn't need to inflate a housing bubble for his entire first term and half his second'. Your counterargument is 'what should Bush have done in only a single year of his first term? I don't know how to respond to that because it doesn't seem like you're capable of logically piecing an argument together.
So then in your opinion in what year should Bush have popped the housing bubble?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
You mean anti gay marriage groups.
No, I mean anti gay groups. Not that I differentiate between anti gay marriage groups and anti gay groups as they are the same thing, but the groups that CFA donated to engaged in more anti gay activity other than simply advocating against gay marriage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
So then in your opinion in what year should Bush have popped the housing bubble?
At the absolute latest 2003, but probably earlier. The sudden investment in housing was likely just displaced capital from people who weren't investing in tech anymore, replacing one bubble with another. Regardless, in 2003 there should have been no question at that point that housing price increases were at an utterly unsustainable level. Instead, Bush publicly encouraged even greater investment in home ownership.

I'm not sure what your argument even is. Are you trying to say that the correct course of action was to engineer the most catastrophic financial collapse since the Great Depression? If the answer is no, then I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
At the absolute latest 2003, but probably earlier. The sudden investment in housing was likely just displaced capital from people who weren't investing in tech anymore, replacing one bubble with another. Regardless, in 2003 there should have been no question at that point that housing price increases were at an utterly unsustainable level. Instead, Bush publicly encouraged even greater investment in home ownership.

I'm not sure what your argument even is. Are you trying to say that the correct course of action was to engineer the most catastrophic financial collapse since the Great Depression? If the answer is no, then I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue.
So it really was not that unfair of me to say you wanted Bush to pop the housing bubble as soon as he was in office or maybe wait a year until 2002.

I am suggesting that popping the a smaller, but still biggest in history, housing bubble on top of the dot com crash would have still produced a massive economic downturn.

And if the housing bubble was such an obvious problem why didnt John Kerry run on popping it?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
So it really was not that unfair of me to say you wanted Bush to pop the housing bubble as soon as he was in office or maybe wait a year until 2002.

I am suggesting that popping the a smaller, but still biggest in history, housing bubble on top of the dot com crash would have still produced a massive economic downturn.
No, it was dumb of you to say. Years have meaning.

Your suggestion is meaningless. If you were not attempting to argue that Bush's action was the correct one then you have no argument as to whether or not Bush bears substantial blame for the housing bubble. Why did you spend so much time saying absolutely nothing?
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
A CEO stated his personal opinion in public.... which brought to the forefront the fact that his company had been funneling millions of dollars into anti gay groups for years.

I wonder what part of that previous sentence was the issue.
Funneling Millions of dollars to pro family groups is bad? Doesn't Jeff Bezos Funnel Millions to Pro Gay groups? What is the Difference No one calls him a bigot? Doesn't make me not want to not shop at amazon.

Oh and BTW here is where the Bulk of that money goes.

http://winshape.org/

looks hateful.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
No, it was dumb of you to say. Years have meaning.

Your suggestion is meaningless. If you were not attempting to argue that Bush's action was the correct one then you have no argument as to whether or not Bush bears substantial blame for the housing bubble. Why did you spend so much time saying absolutely nothing?
I was arguing that the housing bubble predates Bush, and that pretty much all his options for action were bad.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
Funneling Millions of dollars to pro family groups is bad? Doesn't Jeff Bezos Funnel Millions to Pro Gay groups? What is the Difference No one calls him a bigot? Doesn't make me not want to not shop at amazon.

Oh and BTW here is where the Bulk of that money goes.

http://winshape.org/

looks hateful.
Yes, funneling millions of dollars to anti gay groups is bad. (I always find it funny that 'pro family' groups are trying to prevent gay people from making families, btw)

Are you seriously asking me why one person contributing money to extend equal rights to people is not called a bigot while people attempting to deny them are? Isn't that self explanatory?
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
No, I mean anti gay groups. Not that I differentiate between anti gay marriage groups and anti gay groups as they are the same thing, but the groups that CFA donated to engaged in more anti gay activity other than simply advocating against gay marriage.
More so than countless companies supporting pro gay groups? I think not and it isn't close.
Double standards abound here.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I think what you meant to say was "they don't want Christianities version of sharia to be the law of the land and it makes me sad".
No, you are just being an idiot. I meant to say what I said.

Liberals think tolerance means they can be intolerant of the view of others and still remain tolerant. Yes, it is as foolish as it sounds.

I sincerely doubt anyone is oppressing the "poor christians" of the USA, i think that it might have something to do with the retarded idiots wanting to legislate christian morality.
Look, a red herring!

Being intolerant of intolerance means you are tolerant, if you cannot figure out how that works you should return your brain to your mother, she should put it in her womb and give it back when it's fully developed.
Wait...being intolerant means you are intolerant. You honestly believe this? You honestly believe that being intolerant means you are tolerant? Please tell me you are not serious...that you do not honestly believe being intolerant means you are tolerant. Did someone drop you on your head as a child, or was it more recent than that?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
More so than countless companies supporting pro gay groups? I think not and it isn't close.
Double standards abound here.
That's not a double standard in any way. You are just arguing a false equivalence. I do not view those supporting Jim Crow laws and those opposing them as equivalent, and anti gay bigots are not equivalent to those pushing for gay rights.

Frankly it feels pretty gross to be lumped into the same group with organizations as disgusting as Focus on the Family or the FRC.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
I was arguing that the housing bubble predates Bush, and that pretty much all his options for action were bad.
So you are then arguing that allowing one of the largest financial catastrophes in human history was his best course of action? What are you basing this on? If you are not arguing that, then once again you are simply agreeing with me.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So you are then arguing that allowing one of the largest financial catastrophes in human history was his best course of action? What are you basing this on? If you are not arguing that, then once again you are simply agreeing with me.
Bush had 2 courses of action

1.) Allow the housing bubble to continue to inflate

2.) Pop the the largest housing bubble in history on top of the dotcom crash.

Both of his options were sucky. He was handed a lousy hand and you know it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,140
20,819
136
Bush had 2 courses of action

1.) Allow the housing bubble to continue to inflate

2.) Pop the the largest housing bubble in history on top of the dotcom crash.

Both of his options were sucky. He was handed a lousy hand and you know it.
He did not have to pop the housing bubble on top of the dotcom crash, as it continued to inflate for 6 years after the dotcom crash happened.

Regardless you have only 2 options. Either you believe Bush took the correct course of action or he didn't. Why is it so hard for you to answer this question?
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
Most college kids would raise their hands up and say the Sun is blue if everyone else in the room did it. I know Colleges are a beacon for liberals since they are ran by liberals, but this study blindly implies that everyone, even liberals agree on everything...Thats definitely not true.

James D Watson one of the greatest scientists ever said that he believes black people are on average less intelligent than other races...He is a liberal yet that is DEFINITELY not something the stereotypical liberal would ever say or believe.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The more liberal, the more intolerant of intolerance. So what else is new?
Nothing...they also still claim that being intolerant means they are being tolerant. It begs the question as to why liberals cannot be honest with themselves and others...why they feel the need to tell such an obvious lie about themselves.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,083
15
81
Yes, funneling millions of dollars to anti gay groups is bad. (I always find it funny that 'pro family' groups are trying to prevent gay people from making families, btw)

Are you seriously asking me why one person contributing money to extend equal rights to people is not called a bigot while people attempting to deny them are? Isn't that self explanatory?
I like how people try to redefine something so they can feel better about themselves.

What gives them the right to redefine something that the government has no right to even be a part of?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
He did not have to pop the housing bubble on top of the dotcom crash, as it continued to inflate for 6 years after the dotcom crash happened.

Regardless you have only 2 options. Either you believe Bush took the correct course of action or he didn't. Why is it so hard for you to answer this question?
1.) I asked you when you thought Bush should pop the housing bubble. You said 2003 at the latest.

2.) If the popping the housing bubble was such an obvious thing to do why didnt Kerry make that part of his attack on Bush? Did John Kerry agree with Bush's handling?

EDIT: The reason the question is so hard to answer is because it is like asking if you want to be raped in the mouth or the butt.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I like how people try to redefine something so they can feel better about themselves.

What gives them the right to redefine something that the government has no right to even be a part of?
Its funny how liberals do not believe in marriage, but are so adamant about it extending to gay people.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY