[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ,]

9/25/2007 4:43:51 PM

gg perpetuating the shitty political system by participating in it

it might be different if any of your votes had ever made a difference but of course they havent

young'n

(v27)

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 4:46:01 PM

n/m. not gonna start. no point. on with the original thread topic!

how old are you, btw? just curious

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ,]

9/25/2007 4:46:51 PM

And now back to Boone's question

Quote :

""Also, why the hell do tenured poly-sci professors at Columbia care about "bolster[ing] their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries???""

Before I answer this, I should clarify something I said earlier. I said liberals have an agenda, and that's exactly what I meant; however, agendas aren't limited to liberals. I would say the conservative agenda includes the milestones of personal wealth and power in that order. Liberals' agendas tend to be more altruistic. Because they view the world through an idealist perspective, they wish to exact the greatest amount of change in the status quo, typically because they view the status quo as something that disenfranchises the weak and helpless. I won't speak to whether this viewpoint is right or wrong because that is another argument entirely. I will say that it's easier to exact said change if it has support at a grassroots level. In order to have support, you need people that think like you or at least don't disagree with your point of view. This leads me to my assertion that because liberals need more people that think like them to enact change, they position themselves in places where people haven't completely made up their minds yet as to what line of thinking (idealist or realist) to take, and are still young enough to be willing to fight for change. In case you haven't caught on, I'm referring to academia. Liberal professors wish to foster more liberals. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying it is what it is.

Keeping all of that in mind, tenured poly-sci professors have a lot to gain by bolstering their credibility when dealing with hardliners from other countries.

By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak where conservatives would not, they maintain the appearance (and in many cases rightly so) that they are more open-minded and more apt to have a meaningful and productive discourse than their conservative counterparts. And by taking a hard-line with Ahmadinejad, they don't discredit themselves or their cause (nurturing more liberals) by cozying up to a man everyone knows to be a fanatical despot.

Individually, tenured poly-sci professors have much to gain as well. Policy-makers within the executive branch of government come from all vocational backgrounds, academia being one of those. Establishing a no-nonsense image with hardliners can only help one's career in terms of federally appointed positions. It may sound far-fetched, but it happens. A good example - Secretary of Defense Gates, former President of Texas A&M University. He worked in government prior to his appointment as SecDef, but his stint in academia only enhanced his image when it came time for his appointment to be improved by the Senate. High-profile positions in academia, especially when they are accompanied by notable public appearances such as this, provide name recognition and (not to beat a dead horse) credibility.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:18 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/25/2007 8:17:31 PM

so liberal professors got into academia to recruit new members? and also all professors are just trying to gain credibility for their eventual appointment to a position in the federal government.

that's what most of that post said, right? OOOK buddy.



[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .,]

9/25/2007 8:21:02 PM

teaching is something most professors do but to almost all of them it is a secondary priority.

if anything, if you don't place wealth as a high priority, and are smart, you are more likely to be a college professor

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 8:23:02 PM

^^ Yes basically, but I didn't feel like having to explain my rationale when whoever responded next said I was full of shit. This is the Soap Box, if you don't like reading, you may want to go back to chit-chat.

9/25/2007 8:24:49 PM

Quote :

"teaching is something most professors do but to almost all of them it is a secondary priority."

you are actually correct. their first priority is mainly research.

not to gain a job in the federal government

or turn out more liberals



statered...it seems to me that when that crazed, ultra-liberal university president bollinger blew your fucking mind and took a hardline with Ahmadinejad, you had to scramble to think of an explanation as to how THAT was part of some liberal scheme. this is the best you could come up with?

i bet you had your entire response to the columbia-iranian love fest all ready to go, didnt you? OOPS

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ,]

9/25/2007 8:28:03 PM

Quote :

"would say the conservative agenda includes the milestones of personal wealth and power in that order. Liberals' agendas tend to be more altruistic. Because they view the world through an idealist perspective, they wish to exact the greatest amount of change in the status quo, typically because they view the status quo as something that disenfranchises the weak and helpless."

My Agenda would likely fit in with your so called "conservative agenda." I do not see a problem with the status quo and I am using the current system to get ahead in life. I am by no means an idealist. I think a lot of problems in this country are caused by laziness, ignorance, and the fact that a lot of people think they deserve something for nothing.

This does not mean I support a president who misled the American people into a war that supports his corporate/personal interests. Nor do I support the use of non-objective terms (ie Axis of Evil) and manipulation of the media to demonize select world leaders while supporting other leaders who commit the same caliber of human rights offenses. Pissed off our global allies except for the ones relying on our $$$. Lastly, I disagree with increased regulation of social freedoms of the American people under the banner of religion which often has some underlying corporate/government interest behind the scenes.

So if this makes me a liberal then I guess I could be called worse.

Quote :

"his leads me to my assertion that because liberals need more people that think like them to enact change, they position themselves in places where people haven't completely made up their minds yet as to what line of thinking (idealist or realist) to take, and are still young enough to be willing to fight for change. In case you haven't caught on, I'm referring to academia. Liberal professors wish to foster more liberals. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying it is what it is."

Also, could it possibly be that there are so many leftist in academia b.c they are the most EDUCATED . There is no coincidence that for the most part many of the "red states" are also the ones with the weakest economies, lowest education levels, and more rural environment. Billy Bob and Sally Sue with their "W" sticker on the back of their pickup truck in bumfuck Mississippi are probably not the brightest bulb in the pack.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:45 PM. Reason : l]

9/25/2007 8:41:19 PM

^^ I'm not going to try and change your mind. I've already posted the equivalent of a book, so if you're going to sit there and take potshots at my argument, without offering any support for your own, I'm not going to waste my time. I'm sorry you've never had a professor at least fake being interested in teaching you, rather than whore themselves for their research.

And I was just wondering how would explain the large imbalance in the number of liberal professors compared to conservative? Polls have been done in which professors were asked their political persuasions and overwhelmingly they responded liberal. How do you explain this, since I'm so poorly informed? Enlighten me.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:46 PM. Reason : You're a piece of work man]

9/25/2007 8:46:08 PM

l

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:55 PM. Reason : internet being slow as fuck; screwed up response]

9/25/2007 8:49:10 PM

It's hilarious to me that because I used the terms left-wing and liberal and I agreed with hooksaw all of a sudden I'm some neo-con conservative. Did you ever stop and think that maybe people in the middle of the aisle can call both sides out and not be under the influence of the opposition.

Quote :

"This does not mean I support a president who misled the American people into a war that supports his corporate/personal interests. Nor do I support the use of non-objective terms (ie Axis of Evil) and manipulation of the media to demonize select world leaders while supporting other leaders who commit the same caliber of human rights offenses. Pissed off our global allies except for the ones relying on our $$$. Lastly, I disagree with increased regulation of social freedoms of the American people under the banner of religion which often has some underlying corporate/government interest behind the scenes. So if this makes me a liberal then I guess I could be called worse. "

I agree with everything you said there. Does that make me a liberal as well?

I just think that you all are taking a naive approach when wondering why people do the things they do. It's possible that I can suspect someone's motives without thinking them crazy or stupid.

9/25/2007 8:52:24 PM

Statered, Dude I just helped you out

Quote :

"Also, could it possibly be that there are so many leftist in academia b.c they are the most EDUCATED "

I guess you could also ask

Quote :

"I was just wondering how would explain the large imbalance in the number of liberal Conservative "

country people
rednecks
blue collar workers
people living in the trailer park (non black of course)
military enlisted men
preachers
etc

[quote] compared to conservative liberal

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:59 PM. Reason : add to the list]

9/25/2007 8:53:11 PM

^^^ Gee, thanks man. Couldn't have read it without you. Bold and caps make sounding words out so much easier.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 8:54 PM. Reason : needed an extra ^]

9/25/2007 8:54:19 PM

^^ I don't know man. I don't have time to consider that. Why don't you? Seems to me like I'm the one doing all the work here. Of course your question begs the question, why are there so many conservatives making boat-loads of money in the corporate world?

9/25/2007 8:57:15 PM

Quote :

"why are there so many conservatives making boat-loads of money in the corporate world?"

I would say that is questionable except for maybe in the very highest of echelons of the "new wealth" in which they simply vote conservative merely b.c they know the leader will enact policies to secure their own personal interest or expand it.

I would even go as far to argue that most professionals outside say the banking or defense industries more liberal minded. At Sony Ericsson where i work I do not think I have met a single employee who made pro-Bush/neo-con comments. I guess engineers making 90,000 and managers making well into the 6-figures is not a boat load of money. Something tells me that our regional President who is from Sweden; and surely has a very nice net worth is not a very big fan of the US republican agenda

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ;]

9/25/2007 9:03:03 PM

^ Well, at least you answered my question, more than I was expecting. Thanks for educating my poor, hick-ass, uneducated self. Although I'm a tad disappointed as you've just posited that liberals can be just as cheap and dishonest as conservatives.

So much for liberals being altruistic.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : adsf]

9/25/2007 9:06:54 PM

Politics is all relative. Besides the whole conservative v. liberal agenda can not be broken down as a black & white issue.

9/25/2007 9:12:00 PM

Quote :

"statered...it seems to me that when that crazed, ultra-liberal university president bollinger blew your fucking mind and took a hardline with Ahmadinejad, you had to scramble to think of an explanation as to how THAT was part of some liberal scheme. this is the best you could come up with? i bet you had your entire response to the columbia-iranian love fest all ready to go, didnt you? OOPS "

No, I wasn't at all surprised he took a hardline with Ahmadinejad. Who wouldn't? I was just trying to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why Ahmadinejad can speak at one liberal institution, but Summers wasn't extended the same courtesy at another.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting all of this liberal testosterone, but realize you're not dealing with some right-wing religious zealot + neo-con conservative. I'm actually pretty middle of the road on most issues. BS is bs and I call it like I see it.

Does George Bush know you stole his "us against them" approach?

9/25/2007 9:19:22 PM

Quote :

"Polls have been done in which professors were asked their political persuasions and overwhelmingly they responded liberal. How do you explain this, since I'm so poorly informed? Enlighten me."

you almost answered your own question in one of your previous posts, until, unfortunately, you went off on some ridiculously misguided path about recruiting young people to liberalism and whatever the fuck about gaining credibility for federal employment...anywho,

universities dont exist solely to give kids something to do after high school. universities exist to educate, and to encourage research and innovation. ie: challenge the status quo. it's their fundamental raison d’être you point out:

Quote :

"Liberals' agendas tend to be more altruistic. Because they view the world through an idealist perspective, they wish to exact the greatest amount of change in the status quo"

interestingly enough, to me, this is the same, inherent philosophy a university operates under

so yes, you were partially correct in you previous post. but this:

Quote :

"Liberal professors wish to foster more liberals"

is one of the more asinine assertions i've heard.

we won't even get into the last paragraph of that post though

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ,]

9/25/2007 9:19:38 PM

^ Which post is that?

And I said that after qualifying it with the statement that it takes more than one liberal to change the status quo. Professors can't do it by themselves. Unless you're suggesting that they are fine with the status quo, in which case they wouldn't have a reason to try to recruit more liberals.

9/25/2007 9:25:57 PM

^the whole federal employement....thing

and you know, you can go to college, major in engineering let's say, learn your skills from a liberal professor, go on to challenge the status quo....AND be a conservative. trust me, i saw it for 5 years at State.

it doesn't take a liberal to challenge the status quo. so, im not buying it, man

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 9:30:56 PM

^ Heaven forbid a liberal might aspire to serve his or her country in a federal government capacity. What was I thinking.

Quote :

"and you know, you can go to college, major in engineering let's say, learn your skills from a liberal professor, go on to challenge the status quo....AND be a conservative. so, im not buying it, man. "

You're right. You can do all of that. I just said that academia seems to be a place where liberals are prevalent and it's my belief that part of their attempt to change the status quo is pointing out its injustice to their students and maybe, in the process, persuade some of them to be liberals themselves.

And as long as we're rehashing everything I ever posted in this thread, remember I also said conservatives like to acquire wealth and power. What do they need those things for (especially power) unless they intend on changing the status quo as they see fit? So what you said there isn't very different (at least not as different as you would like) from what I've already said.

9/25/2007 9:39:59 PM

hey man, i already told you you were almost correct.

it's not like we disagree that much. all that's really being disputed here is your previous assertion that liberals enter the world of academia to recruit new liberals and to gain credibility for positions in the fed.

hey, is that the case with some? yes, i'm sure it is. and some get into academia to check out hot college chicks all day. but the fact of the matter is you have precisely zero evidence to support the claim. and so to explain the "overwhelming" number of liberals in academia in that why is pretty misguided, imo.

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 9:55:11 PM

^ Fine with me, we'll agree to disagree a little. It's probably a good thing because I would have to keep putting you in your place , and I wouldn't have any time to study for my test tomorrow. I wouldn't want to disappoint my liberal minded professor.

9/25/2007 10:00:07 PM

Quote :

"country people rednecks blue collar workers people living in the trailer park (non black of course) military enlisted men preachers etc "

what an idiot

9/25/2007 11:54:38 PM

page 2 has gone to shit.

9/26/2007 12:45:32 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "I don't think you're as dumb as hooksaw (yet) but you come close when you say things like this. Why did you even bring this up? Where does this fit in this thread?" Why did I bring this up and where does it fit in the thread? Hmmm...Maybe I brought it up because it was basically a summation of hooksaw's reason for making the thread in the first place. He was pointing out the hypocrisy in allowing a dictator to speak in an open forum, but uninviting a (once) respected member of academia to speak in a similar forum at another liberal institution. And I'm sure you'll counter that he was uninvited because in the past he has called into question the credentials of women and minorities. "

Umm.. no. That's not what I would say. That's what I would say if I were the strawman that hooksaw created.

The reality is that the 2 speaking situations are drastically different. It's nothing short of idiotic to compare them, but this is hooksaw's MO.

Quote :

"How does this make him any different from Ahmadinejad? Why not have him come speak and then take him to task for his close-mindedness. And if the response would be he's not as important to listen to as Ahmadinejad, why did they invite him in the first place? The only thing that changed was 300 people from the university system (that prides itself on being one of the most liberal in the country) signed a letter of protest voicing their displeasure with the choice of speaker. Why such displeasure? Maybe because they didn't agree with his point of view, and they felt they had nothing to gain (read: advance their agenda) by listening to him."

You asked previously that you didn't want to be pigeonholed, but you did a nice and tidy job of pigeonholing the supposed opposing viewpoint in a way that's easy for you to refute... there's a word for this (hint: i already used it).

In any case, you do seem like a reasonable person (relatively speaking), and while I didn't really mean to offend you before (standard TSB fare really), i apologize if you felt insulted.

9/26/2007 2:15:24 AM

theres a lot of love here, man.

9/26/2007 2:23:07 AM

^^ Come up with a reasonable explaination as to why they didn't want Summers to speak. Until then, I say I was dealing with pigeons in that case, so to pigeon-hole them wasn't wrong. In other words, I called them for what they were, you called me for what I wasn't.

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 9:31 AM. Reason : why not way]

9/26/2007 9:26:45 AM

problem is: "they" who didn't invite summers to speak is a different "they" than the columbia folks. it's not like there's some big academia conspiracy.

9/26/2007 9:29:21 AM

^ I realize this. I'm just saying both Columbia and the University of California system are very liberal institutions, so it seems like they would take similar tracts when deciding whether to let a controversial speaker speak or not. Columbia did what I expected. I still haven't been given a reasonable as to why the U of C system didn't act the same way. If you have one, please, I'm all ears. Until then my explaination is the only reasonable one I can think of and so it's the one I'm going with.

9/26/2007 9:36:08 AM

Quote :

"No, I wasn't at all surprised he took a hardline with Ahmadinejad. Who wouldn't? I was just trying to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why Ahmadinejad can speak at one liberal institution, but Summers wasn't extended the same courtesy at another."

ha. you didn't even watch it.

9/26/2007 9:39:35 AM

Quote :

"what an idiot"

I am sorry, I did not mean to call you or your family out

9/26/2007 9:40:30 AM

^^ Oh no, you caught me. Find anything in any of my posts that said I did. It doesn't change anything of what I said. Ahmadinejad spoke. The Columbia moderator took him to task. This is all I based my argument off of. I assumed no more and no less. And I gathered this much from other people on the board who I was arguing with, so it's not like I've been snowed by hooksaw or anyone else's opinion.

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 9:43 AM. Reason : adsf]

9/26/2007 9:43:01 AM

your first mistake was taking someone's word for it here.

9/26/2007 9:44:13 AM

^^^you're from Matthews...you've proabably got more ignorant rednecks in your family than me

9/26/2007 10:21:23 AM

have you ever been to matthews?? you just illustrated your ignorance by falsely drawing conclusions on subjects that you have no clue about.

Matthews is pretty much like the Cary of Charlotte. I think you are thinking about Mint Hill if you have any clue about the Charlotte Metro Area

9/26/2007 11:22:31 AM

Statered-- you're still asserting that the university system is some sort of monolithic liberalizing machine. This is laughable to anyone left of Limbaugh. I'm sorry if an education tends to liberalize people. Maybe you need to consider what liberalism and conservatism is all about, rather than construct make-believe liberal conspiracies.

And the federal job thing is worse. You need to show that the average professor has more than a 1 in 10,000 chance of landing a position in the executive office. If I were gunning for a federal position, "professor" wouldn't even be in my to ten career paths.

9/26/2007 11:39:34 AM

Quote :

"Matthews is pretty much like the Cary of Charlotte"

hahahahah you're an idiot (as if we needed more proof)

9/26/2007 11:42:38 AM

silly me, i forgot I am talking to TreeTwista who is all and knowing for issues politically, culturally, economically, and demographics of cities around the global.

STFU you stupid troll

9/26/2007 11:54:15 AM

i'm from charlotte you eurotrash backwoods faggot child

matthews is a small town with a bunch of rednecks and some families...gimme a fucking break acting like i dont know shit about matthews

another town that wants to be a city

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 12:24:11 PM

matthews is very analogous to cary. my ex lived there, shit was fucking suburbs.

and -- just like cary -- theres a still a pocket of originals who go back many generations who are some real fatback and collard greens eatin' motherfuckers.

y

9/26/2007 12:34:33 PM

wow i went from being part of a "ignorant rednecks family" to "eurotrash."

Apparently you do not "know about matthews" if you describe it as being a bunch of rednecks.
I guess since you are from Charlotte I can draw similar broad conclusions and assume that you are a fucking thug like all the ones I see driving around the city going up independence.

Matthews stats:

Quote :

"he racial makeup of the town was 90.25% White"

Quote :

"The median income for a household in the town was $67,034, and the median income for a family was $75,791"

Quote :

"About 2.7% of families and 4.0% of the population were below the poverty line"

Charlotte stats:

Quote :

"58.26% Caucasian "

Quote :

"median income for a household in the city is $46,975, and the median income for a family is $56,517"

Quote :

"10.6% of the population and 7.8% of families are below the poverty line. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte%2C_nc

we must have some rich rednecks. I will be sure to hit you up the next time i visit Eastway Blvd and need more heroin.

TreeTwista10 would argue that the sky was not blue if someone in the soapbox said otherwise

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 12:41 PM. Reason : l]

9/26/2007 12:40:13 PM

first off its Eastway DRIVE, not BOULEVARD

second, i dont need a fucking website to tell me about a suburb of charlotte that i've been visiting for 27 years

3rd

Quote :

"I guess since you are from Charlotte I can draw similar broad conclusions "

who started with the whole retarded broad conclusions? oh yeah, you did bitch

Quote :

"country people rednecks blue collar workers people living in the trailer park (non black of course) military enlisted men preachers etc "

9/26/2007 1:50:22 PM

those broad conclusions i listed are stereotypes that tend to be true. I never said all conservatives were one of the list . you are the one that took it personally which makes me feel that you fall in a type of person on that list since you took offense. I do not see why you and hooksaw can make a blanket statement that college professors are liberal but I can not also claim most rednecks/blue collar workers are conservative.

Your statement above also illustrates how when left dumb-founded or overwhelmed by superior intelligence or logic "conservative" people result to using insults and name calling. I may have been guilty of name calling also toward particular users but not till after the cat was left out of the bag by someone else first. Your hero Dick Chaney is a champion of this tactic; I am sure we all remember the debate in which he abandoned his debate skills in order to tell the person giving the discussion to "Go Fuck Yourself"

"bitch", "faggot", "retarted", using a derivative of "fuck," and calling everyone you disagree with an "idiot," in every post makes you sound so intelligent and adds to your argument credibility. If anything it shows your lack of upbringing and increases other users perception that you belong to the "red neck" or "trailor trash" group that I have said often tends to lean more conservative.


[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:11 PM. Reason : l]

9/26/2007 2:07:11 PM

You fuckers can't stop posting about me even when I'm not in the discussion. I told you, statered, that the left-wing moonbats would come screeching out of the ether for your jugular once you agreed with me--about anything. Most of them suffer from hooksaw derangement syndrome--in addition to rabies.

If some of you here had an ounce of candor, you would understand that the Columbia-UC comparison is not a false analogy. Leftists--and especially those in academia--feel that their system of beliefs makes them better people, better than conservatives. The satisfaction that they feel in this is beyond being correct about x or y. In contrast, I as an unaffiliated conservative never think that my system of beliefs makes me better or worse than anyone else--my beliefs just make me right (more often than not).

The feeling of superiority that I have described, which is exhibited mostly by guilt-ridden, white liberals, is the monolithic entity that many here should attempt to recognize. Many leftists in academia indoctrinate rather than educate or otherwise intentionally influence their students because they believe that it will make those students better people and produce a better world. I happen to think those leftists are wrong.

In any event, the latest outrage has apparently happened at Seton Hall. Former Congressman Tom DeLay and Sirius' host Andrew Wilkow--who had been invited to speak by campus Republicans--had their appearance cancelled by the university, which claimed that DeLay would cast a negative light on the school. (NB: Not surprisingly, I can't find a good link about this--the lame-stream media is conveniently picking its stories yet again.)

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 2:10:13 PM

Quote :

"which makes me feel that you fall in a type of person on that list since you took offense"

most people with common sense would feel that i DID NOT fall in a type of person on the list but that I'm still a conservative, hence why I disagreed that all conservatives were on your list...you didnt try to insinuate that most blue collar rednecks are conservatives...you tried to insinuate that all conservatives fall into one of those groups...I point out your shitty stereotype that all conservatives are "poor rednecks" and point out that its not true and then you say "oh sorry i made fun of your family"

Quote :

"result to using insults and name calling."

what namecalling? you're the one who first listed your "list of conservatives" redneck stereotype list, but you get your shitty argument called out and then change the subject to complain about somebody calling you names? more proof that you are plain stupid

Quote :

"retarted"

s'matter boy? dont they teach proper english spelling in the town of matthews?

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 2:12:12 PM

Quote :

"If some of you here had an ounce of candor, you would understand that the Columbia-UC comparison is not a false analogy. Leftists--and especially those in academia--feel that their system of beliefs makes them better people, better than conservatives. The satisfaction that they feel in this is beyond being correct about x or y. In contrast, I as an unaffiliated conservative never think that my system of beliefs makes me better or worse than anyone else--my beliefs just makes me right (more often than not). "

What kind of delusional world are you living in. I do not agree with the hard-core "liberals" in a lot of issues but from my observation they tend to be a lot more open minded to other cultures, socio-economic groups, and ideas. Usually it is the "conservative" population base that tends to think that they are better then the lower class population, less tolerant of other cultures, and people that disagree with them. Look at TreeTwista10 for example. Anyone disagree with his P.O.V is a retard, faggot, or idiot.

Quote :

"most people with common sense would feel that i DID NOT fall in a type of person on the list but that I'm still a conservative, hence why I disagreed that all conservatives were on your list...you didnt try to insinuate that most blue collar rednecks are conservatives...you tried to insinuate that all conservatives fall into one of those groups...I point out your shitty stereotype that all conservatives are "poor rednecks" and point out that its not true"

Not only do you lack in debating skills, thus resulting in your constant use of insults, You must also lack in basic reading comprehension skills since I never said that all conservatives were a part of my "list" nor that everyone on my "list" was conservative. Perhaps you should use scroll button to re-evaluate my post.






[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : l]

9/26/2007 2:15:53 PM

look at HUR...he wants to rebel from his country ass parents so he becomes some eurotrash liberal faggot who likes ahmenijad more than bush

OH NO YOU CALLED ME A NAME I CAN DISH IT OUT BUT I CANT TAKE IT WHEN YOU CALL ME A NAME

Quote :

"Not only do you lack in debating skills thus resulting in your constant use of insults. "

wow schools in the town of Matthews must be worse than I thought. Do they just teach you how to formulate run on sentences or is it a problem with them teaching punctuation?

[Edited on September 26, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2007 2:18:52 PM