Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What does this mean? Conservatism was rejected?
Faxxer
Member Posts: 3,247
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
small snip...it's a GREAT read. lol
Although the terms may mean different things to different people, Americans readily peg themselves, politically, into one of five categories along the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. At present, large minorities describe their views as either moderate or conservative -- with conservatives the larger group -- whereas only about one in five consider themselves liberal.
While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly -- from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.
end snip.
I seem to remember some guys on here claiming that conservatism was rejected... care to ammend your statment?
Comments
35% + 16% + 5% = 56%
9% + 31% = 40%
56 > 40
So yea it was rejected. I don't remember anyone saying that liberalism has taken over, just that conservatism is being rejected. Which it is. Plus there is that one massive political poll that we do every couple of years called elections. I seem to remember very few conservatives being voted in, and way more non-conservatives.
The Official God FAQ
Social conservatism or fiscal conservatism when it comes to your question about conservatism being rejected? Being fiscally conservative is timeless, but the political capital today of God, Guns and Gays I would argue wouldn't get a social conservative anywhere.
There's nothing new about conservatism in the Democratic Party; 51 in Congress belong to a group of declared conservatives and others outside of it of course have that inclination. Democrats are a mixed bag; its only the Republican Party that's become increasingly incapable of supporting more than one ideology; social conservatism and pretend fiscal conservatism.
No one ever allowed the Republican Party or any self-titled conservative movement to actually hijack the word conservative. While "liberal" might make some conservatives suffer allergic reactions, Others like myself can enjoy the full spectrum. Case in point the recent pressure of conservative Democrats pushing PAYGO and garnering the support of Obama as of late; all of whom supported things like the stimulus.
Hell I'm a fiscal conservative, and I support the stimulus and Obama's budget.
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Moderates are liberals? I kinda figured that moderates were just people that don't know what each side stands for so they pick the middle ground.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Why would it be?
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Why would it be?
If you don't get it, I'm sure it's the same reason you support the stimulus bill.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Moderates are liberals? I kinda figured that moderates were just people that don't know what each side stands for so they pick the middle ground.
Apparently you didn't read. Conservativism was rejected, but no where did anyone say striaght liberalism is taking over.
The Official God FAQ
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Why would it be?
If you don't get it, I'm sure it's the same reason you support the stimulus bill.
The reason I support the stimulus bill is because it's common sense to deficit spend in a recession.
Republican Presidents' deficit spending the last three decades though, even during years the budget could be balanced, that's something I wouldn't call fiscally conservative; and its only those brand of Republicans that are against the stimulus.
Moderates are liberals? I kinda figured that moderates were just people that don't know what each side stands for so they pick the middle ground.
Apparently you didn't read. Conservativism was rejected, but no where did anyone say striaght liberalism is taking over.
I read your figures. You put moderates in with liberals to get your 56>40 line.
9+31=40
16+5=21 40 > 21?
More conservatives than liberals? With moderates down the middle.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Moderates are liberals? I kinda figured that moderates were just people that don't know what each side stands for so they pick the middle ground.
Apparently you didn't read. Conservativism was rejected, but no where did anyone say striaght liberalism is taking over.
I read your figures. You put moderates in with liberals to get your 56>40 line.
9+31=40
16+5=21 40 > 21?
More conservatives than liberals? With moderates down the middle.
He put moderates with the liberals because he wasn't saying that there are more liberals than conservatives, he is saying there are less conservatives than there are non conservatives.
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Yes, it's one or the other. You can't be both. The two are mutually exclusive. Especially if you criticized Bush for being a big government spender. You can't do that and then suddenly lionize Obama for taking Bush's spending programs and injecting them with steroids.
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Yes, it's one or the other. You can't be both. The two are mutually exclusive. Especially if you criticized Bush for being a big government spender. You can't do that and then suddenly lionize Obama for taking Bush's spending programs and injecting them with steroids.
A good thing Obama didn't take Bush's spending programs and inject steroids into them, 'else you'd have a point. What would that mean anyway? 0% tax rates and a third war?
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Yes, it's one or the other. You can't be both. The two are mutually exclusive. Especially if you criticized Bush for being a big government spender. You can't do that and then suddenly lionize Obama for taking Bush's spending programs and injecting them with steroids.
A good thing Obama didn't take Bush's spending programs and inject steroids into them, 'else you'd have a point. What would that mean anyway? 0% tax rates and a third war?
Well how about a $787 stimulus bill which has had no appreciable effect on the economy to date and a $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmarks for starters? That's a cool $1.2 trillion and all of it deficit spending. I wouldn't exactly call support of that as being a hawk on spending.
This would be an interesting point if you could tell all of us exactly how long it takes for a "appreciable effect" to take on the economy. Weeks? Months? Years?
But since you don't know (or ANY economic expert for that matter) how long something like that takes to kick in, then I guess we'll all have to color you impatient, since it's only been a few months.
It appears you thought it was just a few months then... whammo! Magic 0% unemployment rate and an economy back in the black. The rest of us are a little more patient than that.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Isn't that like an oxymoron?
Yes, it's one or the other. You can't be both. The two are mutually exclusive. Especially if you criticized Bush for being a big government spender. You can't do that and then suddenly lionize Obama for taking Bush's spending programs and injecting them with steroids.
A good thing Obama didn't take Bush's spending programs and inject steroids into them, 'else you'd have a point. What would that mean anyway? 0% tax rates and a third war?
Well how about a $787 stimulus bill which has had no appreciable effect on the economy to date and a $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmarks for starters? That's a cool $1.2 trillion and all of it deficit spending. I wouldn't exactly call support of that as being a hawk on spending.
Of course it's had an appreciable effect; even in the short term of now even though only a fraction of the stimulus bill has been spent. It's easy to say that it hasn't, but I doubt you've ever checked your State's website tracker of stimulus accountability and seen exactly where funds have gone, who the recipients were, and what was the consequent impact.
As for the omnibus bill, it was written before Obama entered office and was half a year behind schedule as it was, and naturally apart of 2009's fiscal year, not 2010.
But yes, spending in the form of domestic stimulus and tax cuts for small businesses middle incomers alike. Much better than foreign spending and tax cuts geared towards sending more money afar.
Is what reinforces these stats is the last election in Europe and the California vote to kill tax hikes and the fact that people are disgusted with whats happening to to GM and Chrysler.
3800 dealer are being force to shut down all over the nation,the fallout from this has is going to be huge,plus the fact that not Republican voted for the stimulus bill while all the Dem's did voted in a block for it..
This stats are vary good news indeed.
California is so broke because of the liberals.Plus the fact the Unions where given 55% of Chrysler,yeah its just a matter of time.
People in general don't get involved until they are hit personally and we are just seeing the being of this now.
Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public’s patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn’t play too well outside Detroit. And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012.
A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head,
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama’s White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Da party is over...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Of course it's had an appreciable effect; even in the short term of now even though only a fraction of the stimulus bill has been spent. It's easy to say that it hasn't, but I doubt you've ever checked your State's website tracker of stimulus accountability and seen exactly where funds have gone, who the recipients were, and what was the consequent impact.
I love how the framers of the stimulus bill were all a tizzy about getting it passed, saying "We have to act now." We can't wait or the economy will crumble. So they rush to enact the bill and then the money trickles into the economy like a slow leak. If only they knew what they were doing, at least the giant bill might not be a complete waste.
So if you think it's helped, then are you saying that unemployment would be even higher than 9.4% right now even though it's already passed the Obama administration's forecast of 8%? Boy, if you are right, somebody there really miscalculated.
And, of course, the big news that very few seem to be reporting is that the stimulus money is not even getting to the areas of the country that needs it most. I don't need to go to a website that's going to give me the runaround. I can look at the economic indicators.
I don't feel represented here.
What would your affiliation be if you believed that all politicians and businessmen were lying, worthless, parasitic slimeballs? Actually I think I should expand to also include clergy so as to include the whole unholy trinity....
Let the morons fight among themselves and pretend to be kings. I'll still be doing whatever the fuck I want regardless.
Your party would be called the ignorant.
Ignorant for seriously believing that all politicians, every one of them, are evil. And ignorant for thinking that you'll be able to do whatever you want by completely ignoring what is going on around you.
The Official God FAQ
Of course it's had an appreciable effect; even in the short term of now even though only a fraction of the stimulus bill has been spent. It's easy to say that it hasn't, but I doubt you've ever checked your State's website tracker of stimulus accountability and seen exactly where funds have gone, who the recipients were, and what was the consequent impact.
I love how the framers of the stimulus bill were all a tizzy about getting it passed, saying "We have to act now." We can't wait or the economy will crumble. So they rush to enact the bill and then the money trickles into the economy like a slow leak. If only they knew what they were doing, at least the giant bill might not be a complete waste.
So if you think it's helped, then are you saying that unemployment would be even higher than 9.4% right now even though it's already passed the Obama administration's forecast of 8%? Boy, if you are right, somebody there really miscalculated.
And, of course, the big news that very few seem to be reporting is that the stimulus money is not even getting to the areas of the country that needs it most. I don't need to go to a website that's going to give me the runaround. I can look at the economic indicators.
Not sure what your point is 'less you'd have advocated the stimulus being spent entirely in 3 months time. On what I have no idea.
And unemployment numbers are contingent upon the number of people out of work, who're actively looking for work. Job losses have been slowing dramatically since January. So people remaining hopeful in the job market along with losses curtailed is a good sign we're recovering.
And funny your "economic indicators" are news articles and opinions of others. Though it does sound a lot more convenient than referencing sources all on your own and forming your own opinions. That limits any credibility you have though when it comes to comments like "appreciable effects"; you haven't actually observed any stimulus spending in your own state to know.
Your party would be called the ignorant.
Ignorant for seriously believing that all politicians, every one of them, are evil. And ignorant for thinking that you'll be able to do whatever you want by completely ignoring what is going on around you.
How Quaint...
While there may be some politicians / businessmen / clergymen that are honest and altruistic, you have to keep in mind that positions of authority tend to attract large numbers of individuals that only wish to abuse that authority. The only thing that keeps most of these people in check is the powerhunger of their competitors. In other words, if congressman A feels that congressman B is gaining too much influence then congressman A can expose the abuses of congressman B, thus cutting down a potential rival. This is exactly what Adam Smith was talking about when he spoke of "The Invisible Hand."
As for ignoring what's going on around me....
Everyone has the option to reject and refuse the rules. Everyone.
Like most people, I obey the laws that make sense to me and break those that I feel are unjust. When enough of us do this, it creates change because the fools that call themselves powerful have to bow to the reality that they have no power without followers. Yes, they can kill me and my family. But would you really prefer the life of a slave? I think dead is better myself.
Real power in the world sits in the willingness of those that follow. The only person anyone truly has any power over is themselves. And many people don't even have that power....
Wow, you follow the laws you agree with and don't follow the ones you think are unjust? Wow, how noble of you. Jaywalking and removing matress tags for the common man.
<Mod edit>
The Official God FAQ
So... You think all laws are perfectly just?
... or you don't break any laws? ...Ever?
Laws are just words on paper and whether I follow them or not is largely based on the situation. If I'm late for work I will speed. If I'm broke and hungry, I will steal. If someone makes a genuine threat against me or my family, I will kill them... etc...
If a law is passed that says I have to have an RFID chip injected into my body, guess what I'm going to go to extreme measures to avoid.
Choosing to follow my own personal sense of decency rather than bullshit laws that change faster than most lawyers can keep up with is not immature. It's quite possibly the only sane way to live.
The reality of politics is that the shit that really affects you is local. City, County and state politics, in that order, are what actually impact your day to day life. If you're so worried about the currency devaluing, then go burn some in the backyard. Better yet, stop buying shit and put your cash into stronger foreign currency or gold and silver commodities. If you're waiting for some far away politician to save you from shit you don't have any influence over anyway then you're going to be waiting for a looooonnnnnggg God damn time.
Yes, and there are no refreshments in the waiting room either. Just so you know..
BYOC (Bring-Your-Own-Coffee)
"more than 40,000 interviews"
Population of America is > 300 million
Just more abuse of the central limit theorem to achieve political ends.
Gallup polls are just propaganda tools.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.