Did this include me, tbh? I'm latino, mid-40s (not sure what comes across as 'old' these days), and don't believe to have a hint of racism in me.
I don't think it did when I read it the first time, just checking.
Ok Joe. Like I said, stick to regurgitating talking points of others. You're the next torch bearer for Boutons.
Did this include me, tbh? I'm latino, mid-40s (not sure what comes across as 'old' these days), and don't believe to have a hint of racism in me.
I don't think it did when I read it the first time, just checking.
Can't refute any of my claims so resorts to personal attacks
The truth stings buddy
But see, here's a problem I have with your position. You start off making the claim that if people don't subscribe to the entire liberal agenda, they can't possibly be labeled liberal, but then when it comes to religion, you stick to the base tenets. That's an obvious pick and choose, and different standard for basically what amounts to the same exercise (labeling the group). I don't believe feminism or LBGTQ rights are 'tenets of liberalism', they're political positions du jour.
We were just talking about this with rmt, where I was explaining why Political Affiliation poll numbers differ from Political Identification polls numbers. Political Affiliation polls count voters that have registered as voter for a specific party. Political Identification polls count voters given their self-admitted leanings. One would think the latter is a much more dynamic crowd, as the affiliated crowd tend to be more staunch supporters, but that not quite statistically bears out. (here are the relevant poll numbers: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/p...filiation.aspx, https://news.gallup.com/poll/267239/...d-quarter.aspx)
Whereas party affiliation shows a breakdown of R: 29%, I: 38%, D: 31%, party identification shows R: 42%, I: 11%, D: 47%, and the average divergence in the past 20+ years is roughly +- 7 points (with Republicans having the biggest divergence).
And so the question is, do we call those that self-identify as Democrat leaners 'liberal' or not (likewise for conservatives)? This isn't based on a vote, but how they feel about themselves at that given point in time. I don't think it would be a stretch to do so. Sure, they likely don't subscribe to the entire ideology/talking points du jour, but the party identification numbers are probably way more accurate (based on voting records) than party affiliation numbers.
It's part of our Cons utionally protected religious freedom and freedom of speech, tbh... The alternative is thought crime and/or start carving out more exceptions to the 1st amendment for hate... which is undeniably a slippery slope.
Ultimately their acts (not beliefs) are checked against the laws, and so that's what keeps them in line, or jail.
I've injected two on topic direct questions you've avoided.
Keep avoiding them and then do another phony victory dance. Go.
The left isn't known for caring that much about the BoR. Not just the 2A but even the 1A gets applied in self-serving ways. So I don't accept the BoR as being the reason the far left supports Muslims.
"muh guns"
/Blake
Derp mode, activate!
Oh hey more anecdotal bull . No way!
Anecdote?
No more LIP from you... (Low Information Poster)
Yes anecdote. You're a bull moron.
not you fam
Oh blame the "SJW" and "snowflake" boogeyman for all off society's problems right.
If only the left didn't exist we would have this utopian universe. That would put an end to corruption, illegal wars, etc.
Last edited by TheGreatYacht; 10-13-2019 at 04:32 PM.
What are the base tenets of Liberalism? I said I would accept the Wiki description. So list the ones you think are fundamental to being liberal.
There's a difference in calling someone "liberal" based on their liberal views and "liberal" based on what party they'd fall into. Same with conservative. In fact, the god view I have would be a Christian one, but I don't believe a god exists. Since I was raised in a Christian household, and attended church regularly as a child, I still have the Christian version of God as the image I argue against when I debate against theism. That doesn't make me a Christian.We were just talking about this with rmt, where I was explaining why Political Affiliation poll numbers differ from Political Identification polls numbers. Political Affiliation polls count voters that have registered as voter for a specific party. Political Identification polls count voters given their self-admitted leanings. One would think the latter is a much more dynamic crowd, as the affiliated crowd tend to be more staunch supporters, but that not quite statistically bears out. (here are the relevant poll numbers: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/p...filiation.aspx, https://news.gallup.com/poll/267239/...d-quarter.aspx)
Whereas party affiliation shows a breakdown of R: 29%, I: 38%, D: 31%, party identification shows R: 42%, I: 11%, D: 47%, and the average divergence in the past 20+ years is roughly +- 7 points (with Republicans having the biggest divergence).
And so the question is, do we call those that self-identify as Democrat leaners 'liberal' or not (likewise for conservatives)? This isn't based on a vote, but how they feel about themselves at that given point in time. I don't think it would be a stretch to do so. Sure, they likely don't subscribe to the entire ideology/talking points du jour, but the party identification numbers are probably way more accurate (based on voting records) than party affiliation numbers.
From Wiki: Liberalism aims to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. They can further be divided based on their adherence to social liberalism or classical liberalism, although all liberal parties and individuals share basic similarities, including the support for civil rights and democratic ins utions.
These groups on the left aren't looking to disperse power, they are looking to attain some for themselves. They aren't looking to foster diversity. They are looking to have their own differences accepted. The creativity part seems a bit nebulous.
For one, Americans aren't all on the same level of playing field, so different groups will have different goals. Some groups are more concerned with the welfare of their group than with the welfare of people in general. This can be seen in groups like we've discussed, who feel they have been disenfranchised. Instead of reaching out to say "no one should be disenfranchised" they say "we shouldn't be disenfranchised". How different is that than the conservatives saying "we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes" instead of saying "no one should have to pay higher taxes"?
lol...
"it's cool fam - I'm latino aka not racist"
I know lots of Latinos and the first thing they ask is "what are you?" when they meet someone of a different skin shade. They discuss among themselves whether this person is this or that race. That might not be racist, since no preference is given, but Latinos are certainly racially proud folks.
btw fam doesn't mean Fat Ass Mexican, or so I've heard.
Cops are majority whites/males (majorities). Dems represent non whites and females (minorities).
Why do most American police officers support/vote Republican?
Maybe cos most the heads their arresting are Democrats.
Males aren't in the majority, dude.
Dems are majority white as well.
In 2012 About 73% of officers in the US were white. That's a lower percentage than the white republicans.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)