5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around

Post Reply New Topic

^If it's going to be a fashion thread it will have to be Raptor approved,so....

My party? I was going to Democratic caucuses as recently as two years ago. I was working as a Democratic organizer until 2006. I split my vote these days.

You shouldn't assign all of the blame to Republicans, either. A lot of unjustly rich businessmen are Democrats. A lot of Democrats are creationists, especially in the black community.



Who's teaching real science? A lot of old guard scientists disliked Sagan because he dumbed things down so much. They were right. He brought a lot of intellectually timid people into academics who really shouldn't be there. If you want something on that level, Asimov's general science books are a lot more grown up.

Quote:

NobodyKnows wrote:

Hate trickle-down tax cuts _AND_ Increase trickle-down spending (1)

And Republicans love no trickle anywhere economics and prefer just give us all the cash and we'll take some more economics.

Democratic spending hasn't exactly been a waterfall bathing the poor.

Quote:

NobodyKnows wrote:

Hate guns because they kill people _AND_ Love alcohol even though it kills just as many

Ummm . . .
So Republicans hate beer?

Being tolerant of both is more consistent than opposing one and not the other. They're really pretty comparable.

Quote:

NobodyKnows wrote:

Love kids _AND_ Protect bad schools that hurt them(2)

And Republicans hate any government money going to kids and any government money going to public schools.

No money going to public schools? (Link)

Quote:

NobodyKnows wrote:

Don't let businesses police themselves _AND_ Give monopoly status to self-policing accreditation bodies

Large businesses have done a pretty sh*tty job policing themselves, and even government policing barely slows them down. Do you know how many corporate violations have been settled with the DOJ for significantly less than the amount of cash they illegally bilked the public out of?

Hey, at least the businesses had to settle. Accreditation bodies have done a malevolent job, and they didn't even get a dirty look from the Department of Education. They bilked young people in the US out of billions. An entire generation is washed up and indebted right now because or their dishonesty. On the professional side, they've covered up dangerous healthcare. Consumer Reports called out the America Dental Association on that.

Quote:

NobodyKnows wrote:

Hate regressive policies _AND_ Require a $40,000 degree for low-skill work (4)

A degree is not a requirement established by Democrats, my friend.

Democrats are cozy with our corrupt university system - more so than Republicans, and that's saying a lot. The need for a degree has a lot to do with hiring rules that were designed to be objective. They aren't: Most people just take puff courses to inflate their GPAs.

NobodyKnows wrote:

In my state, the above is a 100% Democratic problem.



It's not just a racial issue. There are plenty of poor people paying into that system who don't have much chance of getting anything out. That's supply-side spending.



My understanding was that it was already pretty neutered, but it's been a while.



An almost exclusively Democratic organization begged money off of people they claim to oppose, then gleefully did their dirty work for them. Oh, and lied about it.



1) You don't need a high school education to work as an Americorps community organizer, let alone any type of university degree. There's almost no math, and even a lot of "educated" staffers that I've worked with had sloppy grammar. You need to know how to use a spreadsheet, word processor, and e-mail client, how to fix a paper jam in a printer, and how to be polite to people. They didn't spend much time on any of those topics at my school. 2) Even our engineering schools do a bad job of meeting your alleged need for more technical skill. 3) Technology really hasn't advanced much. That's hype. I was there.

lol

Heh.

I was rejected from Americorps because I wasn't "social enough."

Glad to know I didn't miss much.

Only if Mrs. Raptor can be in it.

Are the roses for your wedding or funeral?I'm betting the latter if you ask her to fix you a sandwich.She's holding them like she wants to beat someone with them,they look kind of thorny.Maybe she's pissed becuse they are the wrong color,you better get it right next time,if there is a next time.

Hes still emberrassed by being caught wearing drag in the gif I posted.

Maybe he wants to take after Goering,he liked to dress in drag.

^not arguing that in the slightest, merely pointing out that many of those assumptions are flawed, at best. It was contrast that I was going for.



I would disagree. Especially since Sagan was trying to reach a school age audience. Sagan got a lot of people on the path to knowledge and off of the path of ignorant assumption. I feel that he helped slow the brainwashing of an awful lot of the youths of the time. And I don't think that anyone should be excluded from pursuing academics.



Agreed. That is their biggest failing. Championing the rights of the poor, while only making token gestures to help. Although I prefer that (slightly) to those who knowingly lie to them by telling them that if they just let the rich have more money, everything will be ok.



I would have agreed up until the TP jumped on the scene, swinging things into an altogether absurd and destructive level.



Businesses are being rewarded for screwing over the public (and the tax money you pay to the government) by being allowed to try to get away with anything they want; if they get caught, they only have to give a little back.
An entire generation is buried under college debt because of the financing structure; in large part due to the Department of Education turning a blind eye to price gouging by colleges and the questionable practices of the lenders who service that debt. It has little to do with accreditation bodies. Without accreditation bodies, there would be no minimum standard for your heart surgeon, the group that makes sure your pharmacy doesn't frequently give you the wrong medication, the people who run your nuclear power plant, or the colleges granting degrees. Are there problems and corruption? Of course; that goes with every organization.



I would rather deal with the garbage that goes with increasing the number of people seeking higher education than decreasing the effectiveness and availability of education. A lesser of 2 evils, in my opinion.
Few jobs require a set GPA. Padding your schedule usually has more to do with maintaining scholarships or those who need to feel superior.
Are you seriously suggesting that more education is a bad thing?



Everyone expects graduation in four years, regardless of circumstance. It is hardly a Democrat/Republican problem. Things are shifting, though, with the availability of custom schedules, programs to go part time while working full time, and improved availability od distance education. I don't see how having high expectations is a problem. It is only a requirement in specific and mostly infrequent circumstances.



It is definitely not just a racial problem, but since that's where you went with it, that is how I responded. Poverty is a bigger problem, but to assume that the poor will not get anything out of their education is a disturbing attitude to have. Are you saying that the poor shouldn't bother going to college?



It was somewhat more authoritative, until the Dems made a boatload of concessations to get it passed.



It was a group that relied on private funding. It was a problem that was based on money and greed; hardly an exclusibve trait to the Democrats.


So being educated does not increadse knowledge or capability in the slightest?



Oh my god. You seriously believe that technology is not expanding and advancing at an astronomical rate? How is that smart phone working out for you? You know, the one that can do everything that would have taken the entire contents of a Radio Shack store 15 years ago?

I don't as for a sandwich I order one. Got help her if it's not done right.


Don't flatter yourself.


What's with the nazi fascination with you?

More like I have an interest in weird history.And they were plenty weird.

I had a pretty strong interest in naziism as a kid. Weird thing is that I had the interest BEFORE I even knew what it was, if that makes any sense. Not so much of an interest in more recent years as an adult but I still know enough details to use them to screw with people when they need screwing with.

I built a lot of what went into your phone. I worked on the first oxygen doping machines, which made its processor possible. I worked on the hard milling systems used to mold its case. I worked on optics finishing systems that made its small lens possible. I worked on systems that increased disk drive capacities by several fold, making things like Google Maps and Siri viable. I worked on mask writing systems used in making all integrated circuits. I contributed to open-source projects on which Andriod and OS-X (and maybe iOS) are based. No, most of it isn't very new.

(I don't own a smart phone, by the way.)

It's well documented that a lot of performance improvements are fake: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/wh ... -away.html

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/ ... p-in-2014/

New features usually aren't new, either: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/12578 ... _brief.pdf (pgs. 6-7)

Two more: Quantum cryptography" isn't even a cryptographic method, and it's not unbreakable. Apple's "G5" didn't break any "4 GB memory barrier," since a lot of earlier chips had 36-bit address buses and could handle up to 64GB. There are endless examples.

There is some genuinely new stuff going on in artificial intelligence. Medicine seems to be getting some useful tools also. A lot of the other stuff is hype.



I was mostly a civil liberties Democrat, so it's worth pointing out that Rand Paul made a clearer, stronger case against the PATRIOT Act than any other senator that I'm aware of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSDBswx90Cs

The other faction of the Democratic party is made up of people whose jobs depend on federal money. There's nothing wrong with defending your job, but remember that my employer doesn't have nuclear weapons. My Austrian family lived under the Nazis, whose power came largely from writing people's paychecks. Likewise with Assad and Saddam. How bad would your employer have to be before you'd stand up to them?



As someone whose industry has been under their microscope, I've bee pretty impressed with Consumers' Union. They hire savvy people to design their tests, but the money still comes from consumer advocates (rather than a self-policing structure). That model could work for all of the specialties that you've mentioned. Given how badly they've performed, it's worth a shot.

As far as the private sector's ability to screw me over, take this example: I hated the Microsoft monopoly. It wasn't just that they made iffy software, but that it was an especially bad fit to my needs. Even so, I was able to get away from it by setting up my own Linux and BSD systems. It was a royal pain in the butt, and some formats were impossible to convert, but I was still able to avoid paying the Microsoft tax. Try doing that when the state produces a shoddy product: They will jail or shoot you.



I said that "Higher education spending goes to rich whites and asians." That could only mean two things: That it goes to rich people who may be either white or asian; or that it goes to rich whites, and also to asians. I meant the former, but either statement asserts that both problems exist. You responded to only one, so I pointed out the other.



Not as disturbing as what you're helping to sweep under the rug. As I said, I went to some very bad schools. I was the only white kid in my third grade class. One of my classmates at that school tried to stab me, and would have if I hadn't been quick.

By the time kids from that background are old enough to go to college, a little racial preference or some need-based scholarship money probably won't be enough. The sad part is that they're often better than their privileged peers when it comes to life-skills and problem solving grit; the system has no trouble tolerating asinine, juvenile, destructive behavior from affluent students as long as they have OK test scores, but it won't accept kids who are actually pretty mature and smart. So yes, I do think that a lot of poor kids shouldn't go to college. Any kid who makes it through our bad schools intact is too good for our colleges.

The problem is also what state-backed colleges displaced: Both private sector and union apprenticeships were common in the US. Young people in those programs were paid while they learned, whereas in college they have to go into debt. Closing off even basic jobs to anyone who can't cough up $40,000-$100,000 is just wrong.The only justification was the idea that colleges provided better education, and that's never held water:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/1 ... s-not.html

So back to the question of whether bad education is better than no education: The link above is an example of a mistake that a conscientious, educated person should never make. When we were debating the D.A.R.E. program, the academic left understood that you have to measure outcomes. No such luck when it was their own system. Education may still have been great for them, but that kind of self-serving misconduct is bad for society.

I don't consider them unpleasant to be around.

However, they often claim to be "intolerant of intolerance". Nothing wrong with that, but I come across a lot of people who think that intolerance doesn't exist outside of the southern U.S.

For example:

1. Same-sex marriage is addressed infinitely, but very little mention of homosexuality carrying the death penalty or life in prison in many other countries.

2. To them, Abortion is supposed to be almost the sole determinant toward one's whole attitude toward women, but very little mention of FGM in much of Africa and the Middle East, the deadly gang rapes in India, or the near-complete subjugation of women in much of the Muslim world.

3. Not really a tolerance vs. intolerance issue, but they talk about being champions for the common folk, but those who are poor, white, and not living in northern urban areas are derided as "trailer trash" (regardless of their circumstances)--a term that smacks of elitism.

4. They often talk about having compassion for the mentally ill and handicapped, but people who disagree with them (particularly religious people, and Christians in particular), are called "delusional", "mentally ill", or even "mentally ret*d".

5. Many talk about wanting to save the world, but in reality, are just Holden Caulfield wannabes who want the world to change for them and only them. (Why they would want to emulate a character from the favorite book of the guy who killed John Lennon--perhaps the most well-known advocate for world peace--is beyond me.)

I read the book before Lennon was killed.You can't blame the book for that anymore than you can blame the Beatles for Manson.

Yes, it is fun to screw with them.

And they're quick to apply the intolerance label to anyone who questions anything.

Yep, they get enraged at homophobes and pro-lifers.......unless they are Islamic then all the sudden it's practically okay. Well, they might not openly condone Islamic treatment of gays and women but they tend to turn a blind eye to it whilst also complaining about Islamophobia.


Yes, it's amazing how we're well into the 21st century but so many of them see the entire south as one big low rent trailer park. Talk about being ignorant and unworldly.


Yes, compassion for the mentally ill is conditional.
Also, labeling people who don't agree with them as mentally ill goes back to their claim of being "tolerant".

Only if they can save the world under their terms and run it their way with little tolerance for deviation from thier way.