|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation. This is one of those things that doesn't exist outside of Fox News. Hell, the current conservative base are the liberal hippies that their older generation insisted would bring down society with their drugs, music, and sexual deviancy. Colleges haven't changed, people not at college always insist that colleges are a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas. They're really not. It's a myth. You need to come back to reality.
Then why, for instance, do a large number of comedians, who generally are left-of-center, keep complaining about a diminishing freedom of expression in college campuses? The problem might not be as widespread as Danglars might feel, or as troublesome as evangelical iliberalism, but I'm not sure that claiming it's fiction is really going to help.
|
On November 02 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs. You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it. At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion. This is why you're a dishonest joke. You don't even cite right the posts. You take everything out of context. And I knew that you would do it, too, which is why I edited my original post and added the precise citations. On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it? Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here. Maybe it's my browser or something, but those don't link to what you're claiming they do. We never really finished that conversation though, so I can't defend you on this one. Looks like I screwed up the linking by adding too many #: Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question? I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. First one. Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question? I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. Don't you agree that 'republican in name only' is a bit of a misnomer if there basically are no republicans that aren't republicans in name only? I mean I know you said 'not saying that they aren't out there', but it seems like you consider a vast majority of republicans republicans in name only. Isn't it more appropriate to adjust your opinion of what being 'a republican' constitutes? Like I told GH a few posts ago, you are conflating two distinct concepts. That a republican is not a “very principled conservative” does not mean that he is a RINO. Second one.
See edit^
Also this is why I can't help you on this one. We got as far as you justifying those comments by saying you disagreed with my framing, but didn't explain how your framing was better at identifying who isn't a RINO.
You say it's better (without providing a reason why or at what) to just focus on who is a RINO, but the whole point was to figure out who the "Republicans" they were imitating "in name only" were.
Where we ended up is that there are quite a few RINOs, 1 conservative you can name off the top of your head (feel free to add some now that you've had some time to think if any others exist in your opinion) and the rest of the Republican party.
If they aren't RINOs, and they aren't Conservatives (this is what you've said) then what are they? My contention was that they are Republicans I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming.
EDIT: It seems that you are claiming the Republican party is mostly full of people you hesitate to call principled conservatives but aren't RINO's or RIFs.
I guess I'm still stuck with not knowing who these "Republicans In Fact" are. It seems fair to say that as of when you used the term you didn't know who they are. Which is why a lot of people think it's a pretty silly thing to be saying in the first place.
EDIT 2: Essentially "Republicans" as you define them (by way of RINO) don't exist as a group you have in mind when using it. There are a lot of other, better, more accurate terms you could use to describe your grievance than "RINO" since it doesn't actually mean what the letters stand for.
|
On November 02 2017 08:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:09 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 08:06 Toadesstern wrote:On November 02 2017 07:50 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 07:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Remember what I said yesterday about some posters harping on people that only their internet circle or their opposition care about?
"A professor at Middleburry" and "Charles Murray" fall squarely into that category. When your trade is people and not ideas, you're stopped from considering ideas without knowing what people are saying them. I invite you to take the plunge and tell me what you think are the acceptable bounds of debate on college campuses. which has nothing to do with what he was talking about. He's just saying that some random prof at some random unknown university isn't someone with a huge following or any kind of influence. Also what warding was getting at. They're basicly saying those are shit ideas but they're not a threat simply due to them being so insignificant. Yeah, he had a lazy angle that was wrong. I was bringing up a point I was reminded of from LegalLord's post. He herp derps on the people involved because he's too much of a coward to make a definitive statement. I wasn't aware that allowing others freedom of expression required me to care about what everyone says. I accept that western society favours free speech, and I accept that this will allow dumb things to slip out frequently. If you ask me to comment specifically on some of their messages, I may care enough about them to respond directly about it. If they're in the vein of "there was a dumb message on twitter by a random person", probably not. Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 08:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 07:50 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 07:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Remember what I said yesterday about some posters harping on people that only their internet circle or their opposition care about?
"A professor at Middleburry" and "Charles Murray" fall squarely into that category. When your trade is people and not ideas, you're stopped from considering ideas without knowing what people are saying them. I invite you to take the plunge and tell me what you think are the acceptable bounds of debate on college campuses. Maybe I had a boring college experience, but college should be about college first and foremost. So what is the acceptable bounds of debate? It seems like a rather dumb subject to begin with, because college campuses, and the people attending them, are not exactly there for "debate" as a whole. Which puts it as an activity for some select classes within the confines of the course material, or an extracurricular activity organized by sutdents, and both will fall to the whims or tolerance of the campus administration. Colleges doing college is free debate and the arena of ideas. You have a poor understanding of the purpose of college, particularly the purpose of the liberal arts. It's not creating some curriculum playground for selecting classes. It's supposed to challenge your worldviews from high school and, from the conflict, develop you into more of an adult. Then maybe you're in the sciences learning about how the world functions mechanically and biologically. Yes, this is the romanticized version of post-secondary education. It doesn't match very well to the actual college experience, but I can appreciate the wishful outlook on the shaping of young adults.
I prefer the positive statement that x,y,z idea is not an accurate description of society or embodied by people within society ... rather than a stupid attempt to say somebody's trying to find outrage on the internet to justify their point of view. It's laziness. Campus protests that drowned out invited speakers from the right happened and we've just barely gotten past Berkeley fixing its shit to protect the speech of all student groups.
At least you dip your pinky toe into what should be true about college and isn't at the moment true.
|
Personally, my undergraduate experience was a nice combo of freedom and, once I dropped econ and picked up english lit, a fair number of challenging courses that definitely changed how I see the world. And I went to one of the largest universities in the country.
Nevertheless, I'm not going to use the singular vantage point of my own experience as a basis for adjudging the quality of college education in the US. Are there probably universities with a pronounced bias in curriculum that does a poor job of representing some kinds of views? Absolutely, the college scene in the US is pretty diverse, even among large institutions themselves, and many constantly fight about what should be taught and in what way.
That ultimately has very little to do with Dangle's "I was a conservative in an English class that yelled at me" op-ed outrage machine that seeks to highlight and emphasize a very narrow set of potentially true issues at the exclusion of all else, filtered through little more than romance and a wistful "the way things were" attitude, however.
On November 02 2017 08:32 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation. This is one of those things that doesn't exist outside of Fox News. Hell, the current conservative base are the liberal hippies that their older generation insisted would bring down society with their drugs, music, and sexual deviancy. Colleges haven't changed, people not at college always insist that colleges are a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas. They're really not. It's a myth. You need to come back to reality. Then why, for instance, do a large number of comedians, who generally are left-of-center, keep complaining about a diminishing freedom of expression in college campuses? The problem might not be as widespread as Danglars might feel, or as troublesome as evangelical iliberalism, but I'm not sure that claiming it's fiction is really going to help.
Comedians who talk of such things don't have a clue of what's going on at places like Hillsdale College and Liberty University. Check them out.
|
On November 02 2017 08:31 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 08:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 07:50 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 07:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Remember what I said yesterday about some posters harping on people that only their internet circle or their opposition care about?
"A professor at Middleburry" and "Charles Murray" fall squarely into that category. When your trade is people and not ideas, you're stopped from considering ideas without knowing what people are saying them. I invite you to take the plunge and tell me what you think are the acceptable bounds of debate on college campuses. Maybe I had a boring college experience, but college should be about college first and foremost. So what is the acceptable bounds of debate? It seems like a rather dumb subject to begin with, because college campuses, and the people attending them, are not exactly there for "debate" as a whole. Which puts it as an activity for some select classes within the confines of the course material, or an extracurricular activity organized by sutdents, and both will fall to the whims or tolerance of the campus administration. Colleges doing college is free debate and the arena of ideas. You have a poor understanding of the purpose of college, particularly the purpose of the liberal arts. It's not creating some curriculum playground for selecting classes. It's supposed to challenge your worldviews from high school and, from the conflict, develop you into more of an adult. Then maybe you're in the sciences learning about how the world functions mechanically and biologically. I went to college and studied biology. I didn't feel like it challenged my world views but I definitely became more exposed and more understanding of other world views besides my own. So when you say "college is [for] free debate and the arena of ideas", I agree wholeheartedly. But you still give zero specifics about what in American colleges that they teach or don't teach that's so threatening to the next generation. You're giving readers in this thread the impression that these universities are exposing impressionable young mind to negative liberal ideas. So I ask again, what are those ideas?
I commented in my personal apprehension of college illiberality vs some crank in Alabama. Unless you're coming into this with specifics on all the dangers one Senator from Alabama will cause to the Republic, I don't really see a point.
|
On November 02 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs. You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it. At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion. This is why you're a dishonest joke. You don't even cite right the posts. You take everything out of context. And I knew that you would do it, too, which is why I edited my original post and added the precise citations. On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 05:57 Sermokala wrote:
I'm with danglers on a lot of this. I don't participate in this thread as much as I used to because any dissent from leftist viewpoints is responded with insults and name calling first, with actual arguments coming much further behind it. I get it that trump's election gives people an excuse for this but I just don't see the point in trying to be a "reasonable conservative" when no one has any tolerance for that. There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it? Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here. Maybe it's my browser or something, but those don't link to what you're claiming they do. We never really finished that conversation though, so I can't defend you on this one. Looks like I screwed up the linking by adding too many #: On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question? I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. First one. On October 31 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question? I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. Don't you agree that 'republican in name only' is a bit of a misnomer if there basically are no republicans that aren't republicans in name only? I mean I know you said 'not saying that they aren't out there', but it seems like you consider a vast majority of republicans republicans in name only. Isn't it more appropriate to adjust your opinion of what being 'a republican' constitutes? Like I told GH a few posts ago, you are conflating two distinct concepts. That a republican is not a “very principled conservative” does not mean that he is a RINO. Second one. See edit^ Also this is why I can't help you on this one. We got as far as you justifying those comments by saying you disagreed with my framing, but didn't explain how your framing was better at identifying who isn't a RINO. You say it's better (without providing a reason why or at what) to just focus on who is a RINO, but the whole point was to figure out who the "Republicans" they were imitating "in name only" were. Where we ended up is that there are quite a few RINOs, 1 conservative you can name off the top of your head (feel free to add some now that you've had some time to think if any others exist in your opinion) and the rest of the Republican party. If they aren't RINOs, and they aren't Conservatives (this is what you've said) then what are they? My contention was that they are Republicans I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming. Kwarks interpretation is pretty much the only one left, though I'm open for you to clarify what I'm not understanding.
The problem here is that you keep looking at it as a dichotomy between RINOs and “very principled conservatives.” What I have been saying is that there is a third category of republicans who are just “conservatives.” These people aren’t as principled as someone like a Rand Paul (meaning that they are more likely to deviate from expressed conservative values), but they aren’t quite bad enough to be RINOs (meaning they don’t deviate or shit on their own party as frequently as a McCain or a Flake).
Again, I am not prepared to categorize every national republican into these three categories, but there clearly is nothing logically inconsistent with how I have been framing this.
|
United States43277 Posts
My professors slant decidedly conservative. I've had one go on a rant about title IX and women, while another stopped a class to explain how the blacks had ruined the NFL and that the NBA was no better.
|
On November 02 2017 08:39 farvacola wrote:Personally, my undergraduate experience was a nice combo of freedom and, once I dropped econ and picked up english lit, a fair number of challenging courses that definitely changed how I see the world. And I went to one of the largest universities in the country. Nevertheless, I'm not going to use the singular vantage point of my own experience as a basis for adjudging the quality of college education in the US. Are there probably universities with a pronounced bias in curriculum that does a poor job of representing some kinds of views? Absolutely, the college scene in the US is pretty diverse, even among large institutions themselves, and many constantly fight about what should be taught and in what way. That ultimately has very little to do with Dangle's "I was a conservative in an English class that yelled at me" op-ed outrage machine that seeks to highlight and emphasize a very narrow set of potentially true issues at the exclusion of all else, filtered through little more than romance and a wistful "the way things were" attitude, however. Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:32 warding wrote:On November 02 2017 07:21 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
The far greater threat is illiberality taught to college students of the next generation. This is one of those things that doesn't exist outside of Fox News. Hell, the current conservative base are the liberal hippies that their older generation insisted would bring down society with their drugs, music, and sexual deviancy. Colleges haven't changed, people not at college always insist that colleges are a hotbed of dangerous liberal ideas. They're really not. It's a myth. You need to come back to reality. Then why, for instance, do a large number of comedians, who generally are left-of-center, keep complaining about a diminishing freedom of expression in college campuses? The problem might not be as widespread as Danglars might feel, or as troublesome as evangelical iliberalism, but I'm not sure that claiming it's fiction is really going to help. Comedians who talk of such things don't have a clue of what's going on at places like Hillsdale College and Liberty University. Check them out.
So did you learn the benefits of strawmanning your opposition in English lit or econ? Because you're basically the twin of people whining about SJWs all day by trying to point to nonexistant people that complain about an English teacher yelling at you.
Buddy, talking about challenging worldviews does mean an English teacher might yell at you. That's exactly what it means.
|
On November 02 2017 08:45 KwarK wrote:
My professors slant decidedly conservative. I've had one go on a rant about title IX and women, while another stopped a class to explain how the blacks had ruined the NFL and that the NBA was no better.
Oh yeah, around half my professors in law school were extremely conservative, one has an obsession with bitcoins and libertarian hunter/gatherer lifestyles and another loves telling everyone how he sat next to John Roberts while he was stuck in confirmation hell.
|
United States43277 Posts
xDaunt, you can't maintain that you're not doing purity tests while also telling us who passes and fails your purity tests. It's that simple.
|
On November 02 2017 08:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:31 NeoIllusions wrote:On November 02 2017 08:12 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 08:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 02 2017 07:50 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 07:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Remember what I said yesterday about some posters harping on people that only their internet circle or their opposition care about?
"A professor at Middleburry" and "Charles Murray" fall squarely into that category. When your trade is people and not ideas, you're stopped from considering ideas without knowing what people are saying them. I invite you to take the plunge and tell me what you think are the acceptable bounds of debate on college campuses. Maybe I had a boring college experience, but college should be about college first and foremost. So what is the acceptable bounds of debate? It seems like a rather dumb subject to begin with, because college campuses, and the people attending them, are not exactly there for "debate" as a whole. Which puts it as an activity for some select classes within the confines of the course material, or an extracurricular activity organized by sutdents, and both will fall to the whims or tolerance of the campus administration. Colleges doing college is free debate and the arena of ideas. You have a poor understanding of the purpose of college, particularly the purpose of the liberal arts. It's not creating some curriculum playground for selecting classes. It's supposed to challenge your worldviews from high school and, from the conflict, develop you into more of an adult. Then maybe you're in the sciences learning about how the world functions mechanically and biologically. I went to college and studied biology. I didn't feel like it challenged my world views but I definitely became more exposed and more understanding of other world views besides my own. So when you say "college is [for] free debate and the arena of ideas", I agree wholeheartedly. But you still give zero specifics about what in American colleges that they teach or don't teach that's so threatening to the next generation. You're giving readers in this thread the impression that these universities are exposing impressionable young mind to negative liberal ideas. So I ask again, what are those ideas? I commented in my personal apprehension of college illiberality vs some crank in Alabama. Unless you're coming into this with specifics on all the dangers one Senator from Alabama will cause to the Republic, I don't really see a point.
The (soon-to-be) Senator that thinks Muslims should be banned from congress joining the President who thinks we should ban Muslims from the country and a segment of Democrats like Mohdoo who thinks Democrats need more xenophobia in their platform. What could possibly go wrong, amiright?
You say plenty I disagree with, but this "college professors, not rampant violation of people's constitutional rights, white supremacist terrorists, etc.. endorsed all the way up to the president are the threat we need to worry about" is one of the worst.
The only appropriate way for you to feel about how absurd your position on this is shame.
|
On November 02 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs. You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it. At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion. This is why you're a dishonest joke. You don't even cite right the posts. You take everything out of context. And I knew that you would do it, too, which is why I edited my original post and added the precise citations. On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:On November 02 2017 06:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
There are actually a good number of conservative posters on this thread, if I recall. They just aren't xDaunt, Danglars or RIK, so somehow get bunched into the "left". Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin. You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative. No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it? Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here. Maybe it's my browser or something, but those don't link to what you're claiming they do. We never really finished that conversation though, so I can't defend you on this one. Looks like I screwed up the linking by adding too many #: On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question? I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. First one. On October 31 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives. If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only? I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy. Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's? I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research. Don't you agree that 'republican in name only' is a bit of a misnomer if there basically are no republicans that aren't republicans in name only? I mean I know you said 'not saying that they aren't out there', but it seems like you consider a vast majority of republicans republicans in name only. Isn't it more appropriate to adjust your opinion of what being 'a republican' constitutes? Like I told GH a few posts ago, you are conflating two distinct concepts. That a republican is not a “very principled conservative” does not mean that he is a RINO. Second one. See edit^ Also this is why I can't help you on this one. We got as far as you justifying those comments by saying you disagreed with my framing, but didn't explain how your framing was better at identifying who isn't a RINO. You say it's better (without providing a reason why or at what) to just focus on who is a RINO, but the whole point was to figure out who the "Republicans" they were imitating "in name only" were. Where we ended up is that there are quite a few RINOs, 1 conservative you can name off the top of your head (feel free to add some now that you've had some time to think if any others exist in your opinion) and the rest of the Republican party. If they aren't RINOs, and they aren't Conservatives (this is what you've said) then what are they? My contention was that they are Republicans I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming. Kwarks interpretation is pretty much the only one left, though I'm open for you to clarify what I'm not understanding. The problem here is that you keep looking at it as a dichotomy between RINOs and “very principled conservatives.” What I have been saying is that there is a third category of republicans who are just “conservatives.” These people aren’t as principled as someone like a Rand Paul (meaning that they are more likely to deviate from expressed conservative values), but they aren’t quite bad enough to be RINOs (meaning they don’t deviate or shit on their own party as frequently as a McCain or a Flake). Again, I am not prepared to categorize every national republican into these three categories, but there clearly is nothing logically inconsistent with how I have been framing this.
So is it fair to say that the not-RINO's and not-principled conservatives, are in fact the RIF's, or are the RIF's an ethereal /imagined group?
Or to get back to the original question without the presumption; Who are the Republicans In Fact?
|
Anybody want to talk about Sessions perjury via Papadopoulos. They cover up has worked well so far in the last year or so since the start of the campaign, but it takes only one person to crack and the entire thing will unravel. They can claim the Papadopoulos angle and confirm know about the Russian connection, or they can keep on denying and risk perjury as others come out to confirm the story.
|
On November 02 2017 08:45 KwarK wrote:
My professors slant decidedly conservative. I've had one go on a rant about title IX and women, while another stopped a class to explain how the blacks had ruined the NFL and that the NBA was no better.
As a guy who did mathematics and computer science this all sounds so foreign to me. The most politcal I ever had was flyers being shoved in my face by marxists on exam days.
I can't help but feel that my end of the spectrum is probably closer to how things should be.
|
United States43277 Posts
On November 02 2017 08:56 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 08:45 KwarK wrote:
My professors slant decidedly conservative. I've had one go on a rant about title IX and women, while another stopped a class to explain how the blacks had ruined the NFL and that the NBA was no better. As a guy who did mathematics and computer science this all sounds so foreign to me. The most politcal I ever had was flyers being shoved in my face by marxists on exam days. I can't help but feel that my end of the spectrum is probably closer to how things should be.
These were not political classes, this was accounting.
|
We had lots of antiabortion activists fill our campus with blown up pictures of eviscerated fetuses and the Westboro Baptist Church were regulars in the spring. Personally, I found them fun to interact with, but I was in the minority for sure lol.
|
my business classes right now have professors talking about how awesome it'll be when the adminstration cuts corporate taxes and not understanding why the US is allowed to run a deficit. Computer science goes a bit the other way.
|
On November 02 2017 08:55 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Anybody want to talk about Sessions perjury via Papadopoulos. They cover up has worked well so far in the last year or so since the start of the campaign, but it takes only one person to crack and the entire thing will unravel. They can claim the Papadopoulos angle and confirm know about the Russian connection, or they can keep on denying and risk perjury as others come out to confirm the story.
What perjury?
|
On November 02 2017 08:55 Twinkle Toes wrote:
Anybody want to talk about Sessions perjury via Papadopoulos. They cover up has worked well so far in the last year or so since the start of the campaign, but it takes only one person to crack and the entire thing will unravel. They can claim the Papadopoulos angle and confirm know about the Russian connection, or they can keep on denying and risk perjury as others come out to confirm the story.
Perjury needs you to be under oath. 'Claiming' the Papadopoulos angle now does nothing if they already lied under oath during a hearing. If someone comes forward with proof that you knew at the time of the hearing your fucked regardless of what you do now.
And if they haven't lied under oath yet then claiming now still does nothing cause they have not lied under oath.
|
The perjury angle is that it proves he lied about the campaign having no contacts during his january 21st testimony
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
