How prestigious can it really be if he's not indoctrinated by the bias liberal academia?
Don't particular care whose sock this it, but is it too much to ask them to bring something new to the table?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I can't really come back with anything, because I mistyped prestigious twice.
Just remembered my poly-sci class at my (slightly more prestigious than a community college) state uni.
The prof had won a grammy award for his piano CD; it was a hobby, it seemed. Other than that, all I remember was Marbury vs Madison when we learned what all great Americans do when they're pissed off at fellow Americans - they sue!
The prof had won a grammy award for his piano CD; it was a hobby, it seemed. Other than that, all I remember was Marbury vs Madison when we learned what all great Americans do when they're pissed off at fellow Americans - they sue!
Omegavegeta wrote:
Samira wrote:
As opposed to stealth oligarchy or stealth theocracy. Of course.
I think it is fair to say that liberals tend to look to the government for solutions in more scenarios than do conservatives. I think that the perception that liberals just love big government is a deliberate misinterpretation meant to impugn. I could just as easily assert that all conservatives just love big military and big religion; but I don't believe that's true.
Sadly, much of the political discourse in the current climate is bereft of nuance.
I think it is fair to say that liberals tend to look to the government for solutions in more scenarios than do conservatives. I think that the perception that liberals just love big government is a deliberate misinterpretation meant to impugn. I could just as easily assert that all conservatives just love big military and big religion; but I don't believe that's true.
Sadly, much of the political discourse in the current climate is bereft of nuance.
*****!
/irony off
You can't see him, but mister winky is there. Watching. Waiting.
He's a stealth totalitarian
Just as Planned.
SwaziSpring wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Well the first part of my post is quite literally the definition they teach us in political science class at my college;
I'm not sure if it's in the book, but it was part of his lecture and powerpoint presentation about the various political ideologies. I somewhat suspect that the professor is secretly a socialist. He hasn't come out and expressly stated his political views, but some of the things he's said have been rather left-wing though.
Edited, Sep 10th 2012 11:16am by SwaziSpring
Just to remind you what you wrote and now claim was taught to you in college....
Quote:
Someone who thinks that big government is almost always a good thing;
Did 'he' define big or clarify this definition at all?
Big buildings, big lawmakers, big laws, big flags???
In this community place of higher level learning did you think to question your 'left' leaning professor on what he means?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
Spoonless wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Or, the Western Sonoma University and Burrito Palace.
lol @ "jet packs"
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"? Cause I (or any of a hundred other sources if you want) can clarify that for anyone who's unsure. It just seems like a pretty weak deflection rather than a legitimate question.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"?
Not really, no. It means the speaker is at least adequate at parroting empty talking points.
Alternately, the speaker is one of the conservative elite who is giving the rest of the masses their talking points to parrot.
Edited, Sep 10th 2012 7:21pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is anyone really confused about what conservatives mean when they say "big government"?
Not really, no. It means the speaker is at least adequate at parroting empty talking points.
Alternately, the speaker is one of the conservative elite who is giving the rest of the masses their talking points to parrot.
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. What does this have to do with Elinda asking if a teacher adequately explained what was meant by "big government"? It's unclear if that was the phrase used by the teacher, or the person relating what the teacher said though, which I guess makes it even more tenuous, but at the end of the day, do we really not know what this means? Big government vs small government is a well enough understood concept. Or at least I though it was.
Hence, my question. Is anyone really not sure what is meant by the phrase "big government"? Or do people just pretend to for some reason? And if the latter, then what's the reason? Why would Elinda suggest that big government could mean "big buildings", or "big flags"?
And what's with your response about empty rhetoric. I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all. Again, assuming we all understand what is meant, then the claim is quite clear and quite to the point. Also, it's a claim that his opponent is free to dispute if he wishes. I don't see that as empty at all. Now, empty rhetoric would be saying something like "I plan to work to make America a better place for all Americans". Sounds great, but doesn't really say anything, does it? Hence, why it's empty.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all.
Because "big government" is a meaningless buzzword. It's specifically supposed to be vague so that the audience will hear whatever they want and the speaker can retroactively argue it meant whatever is most convenient for her at the moment.
Hence, my question. Is anyone really not sure what is meant by the phrase "big government"? Or do people just pretend to for some reason? And if the latter, then what's the reason? Why would Elinda suggest that big government could mean "big buildings", or "big flags"?
People pretend. They pretend because real critique of government is complex. Complexity and nuance looses elections. Hence Paul Ryan (not that he understands complexity, he's an empty suit) arguing that big government threatens medicare. Hence Obama campaigning on Hope and Change. Who could be against that? From a political science perspective "big government" is most commonly slang for the argument around federalism in the US, but we pretty much settled that for all intents and purposes around 1866. If you're for a strong national defense, like say, a standing army, you're for "big government." If you're against "big government" you hate the troops.
Do you hate the troops? Have you stopped raping puppies yet?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
SwaziSpring wrote:
He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."
At the risk of turning this thread into Alma's litter box I'd ask if same sex marriage is considered a social justice issue and what your liberal professor or your own perspective might be. Is SSM marriage good or bad, or perhaps simply neutral?
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 3:14pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Actually, most people are too stupid to make their own investment retirement decisions (or to save for retirement at all.) Even smart investors make dumb decisions, as evidenced by the disastrous Facebook IPO, and everyone who got swindled by Bernie Madoff.
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
SwaziSpring wrote:
Elinda wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:
He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."
At the risk of turning this thread into Alma's litter box I'd ask if same sex marriage is considered a social justice issue and what your liberal professor or your own perspective might be. Is SSM marriage good or bad, or perhaps simply neutral?
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 3:14pm by Elinda
He didn't use the word "social justice" iirc. Basically what he was getting at, and he did say this (in regards to Social Security), that liberals believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so they need the government (legislation) to choose for them. I'm assuming he would consider gay marriage a social justice issue, especially since on the first day of class he played a clip by the Westboro Baptist Church and then asked the class whether or not their "bigoted hate speech" should be protected under the First Amendment.
Do you think the Westboro Baptist Churches speech is protected under the 1st Amendment or not? Under what caveats would it not be protected? How would a liberals view and a conservatives view differ here?
I'll go. I hate the hate speech but unless or until it measurably infringes on someone else's activities it falls under free speech. So if their speech incites violence, inhibits other from acting on their freedoms (ie getting to the funeral in this case) is defamatory or slanderous, and stays within municipal ordinance (noise, public gatherings etc) they're perfectly within their rights to stand and shout at our dead service-peoples.
Now you....
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 5:35pm by Elinda
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
SwaziSpring wrote:
Is it though?
Yes.
Quote:
he played a clip by the Westboro Baptist Church and then asked the class whether or not their "bigoted hate speech" should be protected under the First Amendment.
Sure, but everyone hates Westboro Baptist so that don't mean much.
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 11:01am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
He did clarify, he talked about how classical liberalism (modern conservatism/libertarianism) is the exact opposite of modern liberalism (Democratic Party). He then elaborated by saying that Democrats think that the government should be used as a power to push through "social justice" and use the government to legislate what they view as "good" and "bad."
Community college, right? So just to be clear the term "professor" in this context means random douche with a masters degree who couldn't find a real job, as opposed to professional academic. Which is fine and all, but most of your posts primarily indicate that your instructor is biased and sucks at his job. That happens at real university, too, but this seems a little clumsier.
Wait, are you sure this wasn't an EPISODE of "Community" you saw?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 360
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (360)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC