OMG Obama won! Take THAT republicans!

[UCLAri]

<p>

I don’t believe its far from libertarian at all. Libertarianism accepts a minimal government, The Us constitution out of the constitutional convention, is widely accepted by the vast majority of Libertarians as acceptable. Whereas the constitution of today is not, this is due to restrictions and regulations seen in the subsequent amendments. An example of such is the 13th amendment, well that makes government bigger as it need to enforce the idea of no slavery. So it is not accepted, and I don’t accept it either. Minimalist.

</p>

<p>Ah, another one of these “I only like the amendments that I agree with” quasi-libertarians. Hate to break it to you, champ, but Article 5 of the US Constitution clearly states that:</p>

<p>* The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.*</p>

<p>So you either accept the fact that amendments are a legitimate part of the US constitutional canon, or you invalidate the constitution itself. Sucks, don’t it?</p>

<p>

I mean simply look at the woman’s liberation movement and see the destruction done by it. Look at the current state of America and other westernised society’s with woman’s rights, and this state can be derived from woman’s liberation. Its almost pathetic what has happened to the nuclear family, and on top of that with liberated woman the rates of divorce, std’s, suicide, mental and physical health compilations and sexual disorders are all up drastically.

</p>

<p>Let’s look at two STDs and see if they have indeed gone up because of “feminism:”</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif]Gonohrrea[/url”>http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif]Gonohrrea[/url</a>]</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif]Syphilis[/url”>http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif]Syphilis[/url</a>]</p>

<p>Gonorrhea is particularly interesting. The WW2 jump in rates is pretty easy to explain, and I’d assume the late 1960s-1980s peak is probably due to the “free love/party”-era thinking. But feminism? Hard to argue that for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>How do you measure “feminism” as a trend? Do you measure per capita income of women? Number of never-married women? Number of papers published on the topic? Hard to say.</p></li>
<li><p>Even if we do find a way to measure feminism, we are going to have a lot of “unobserved heterogeneity” in the model-- in other words, lots of other variables we can’t measure. In the case of feminism as an x variable to explain the y variable of STD incidence rate, there are a lot of other factors that come into play that may be as powerful in explaining this phenomenon.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In any case, let’s assume that feminism can be measured: then how do we explain the peaks and drops in various eras? How do we explain that current STD rates (using gonorrhea as a proxy) are lower than they were in the “traditional 1950s?”</p>

<p>Your explanation is lacking. </p>

<p>Also, which “sexual disorders” are on the rise? </p>

<p>Finally, suicide rates are an interesting statistic. Japan, which has probably the lowest rate of divorce in the developed world, also has the highest suicide rate. There appears to be no correlation between divorce and suicide as far as the data I’ve seen goes, so I do look forward to you explaining this one. </p>

<p>

The rates of children growing up healthy and unbroken are quite low, and I can go forever. There’s a simple reason why Children who come from a tight Nuclear Family tend to be healthier, happier, smarter and more successful then from those who don’t.

</p>

<p>What the hell is a “broken” child? This is rather offensive to people who grew up in single-parent households (myself included.)</p>

<p>I also note that the nuclear family is only one of many family constructions, and that much of history has found the extended family to be just as, if not more, common. </p>

<p>

Everybody can admit those that the majority of the Jewish population are quite successful, they pretty much run every sector world wide.

</p>

<p>Oh how I love the “THEM JEWZORZ RULEZ DA WORLDZ” fallacy. Just adore it. </p>

<p>

The founding fathers foresaw this problem and made sure it was in check when the constitution was created. Americas more prosperous time were way before woman’s liberation and they are gone as we can see on a global scale. It all comes down to how children are raised.

</p>

<p>Right. Because we all know that Americans were doing way better before the 1950s. Y’know, when small pox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella were rampant. When many people lacked electricity, access to running water, and the most basic amenities.</p>

<p>Y’know, the “good old days.” </p>

<p>

Well Cali, on the numerous IQ tests I’ve taken, my score has always been 156 +/- 3. To be a ■■■■■■ id need a 70. So I’m sorry to say that im 88 points above what you claim. A ■■■■■■ from a public university that can pretty much out debate anybody on this forum, including those from the top schools. Something is wrong here, no?

</p>

<p>You have yet to provide any firm evidence for most of your claims. I wouldn’t call that “out debating.” Perhaps you are more skilled in sophistry, but I don’t know that that’s something to trumpet. </p>

<p>

Those Jewish mothers may be very successful, which is fine. But the trick is, is that they became successful before or after they raised their children. When the Children were born either the woman or man seized their careers in the interest of the family, in most cases it was the woman, as it is only nature, that women are more nurturing then men. These women follow their religion which is quite strict on the raising of Children. The westernised cultures, don’t have or do this, this we see all the problems.

</p>

<p>I call BS on this, being Jewish myself. I know many Jewish mothers who continued their careers even while raising a child. Those children almost all did well for themselves.</p>

<p>I also find it funny that you implicitly blame Westernization yet you argue that the US was at its most successful when it was arguably its most “Western” in ideals. Want your cake and want to eat it, huh?</p>

[applejack]

<p>UCLAri - </p>

<p>All this logic, reason, and complexity! The world is black and white! Sophistate Dr. Horse has clearly stated that he has “come to the conclusion that it has to be the cause or possibly oral contraception”. </p>

<p>Statistics, shmatistics. What more evidence do you need? </p>

<p>:) (please note the sarcasm. Good post.)</p>

[pyroza]

<p>Ron Paul '12 :)</p>

[Dr.Horse]

<p>

You actually believe you’re out debating people on this forum, Dr Horse? That’s hilarious. The depth of delusion is truly mind boggling.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>According to the definition of “debate”, id say arguments where one side poses the positive and the other the negative are debates. I read 4 different dictionary definitions and what is occurring here, is a typical debate which is simply a argument or discussion of opposing sides.</p>

<p>

If you, in fact, are in graduate school, you should have learned by this point proper grammar, when to capitalize words and when not to capitalize words, and proper spelling. You, in fact, have the grammatical proficiency of an 8th grader. So, do not blame me if I mistook you for having the equivalent in education.</p>

<p>Also, if you actually graduated from a university (we call that “college” in the U.S., but you knew that already), then you would have probably taken an introductory communications course as part of a core curriculum that would have taught you that your arguments are fundamentally flawed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Excuse me, but I did not know this was a formal argument. I honestly could care less about my grammar, it takes a lot longer to be proper and doesn’t add all to much. So again I could care less. </p>

<p>No we call colleges colleges and universities universities, there is a difference, so no I did not already know that and you should have. Did I take a introductory communications course, no. According to UNC, and well every other schools website Ive read. Communications Studies is defined as:</p>

<p>"Communication Studies combine material from the humanities, fine arts and social sciences in order to explain how and why people interact in the ways that they do. "</p>

<p>So again you were wrong and I highly doubt that I would have gotten all that much from a introductory class, as defined above. What I did learn from were classes in Logic and discreet mathematics, and also you should know that its far easier to just say that a persons argument is flawed, whilst not even having one yourself. Then saying that ones argument is flawed without saying why. </p>

<p>Everybody in the world can use the argument of “Correlation does not imply causation”, but its complete bull, there must be something that assumes the correlation of the suggested causation, to think that there is not would say that there can never be correlated causation, and thus even science and the truth could just be considered correlation and then everything falls. There are expectations that we all make in such cases and its foolish for you to play this card, instead of actually defending your stance, because truthfully you really have no ground.</p>

<p>

Perhaps, the deeper truth is that the nuclear family no longer serves a fully industrialized culture and the freedom that human nature seeks. Now that we are through our cultural adolescence, it is undermining that particular family structure.</p>

<p>Biologically, we are hard wired to bear children when we are young and raise them when we are over 60 and have the life experience and personal satisfaction to be able to pass wisdom down. Our current society, obsessed with the nuclear family structure, expects children (meaning anyone under, say, 50 when you think in terms of mental maturity) to raise other children.</p>

<p>The nuclear family is highly ineffective for an advanced society (though its efficiency worked well for an industrializing one). The causation you assert, however, is fundamentally wrong. Restricting the rights of women by force of government (which would require a Communist-style of government control to inhibit the free expression of human nature. Yes, I know that Communism is not intrinsically restrictive like that, but in our primitive society that is how it has been manifest) is not the answer. The answer lies in restructuring the family.</p>

<p>Humanity seeks a more perfect union and you’re just trying to hold onto centuries past. Find a solution for the 21st century that empowers all.

</p>

<p>Ive simply shown and argued that as the number of true nuclear family’s decrease, social tensions and problems occur. If what you are saying was to be true, we would need social problems to occur when the rate of the nuclear family was high. If it were high and we had the social problems like we did today then you would be correct. Though its not, the rates of the nuclear family are drastically lower and thus in that we have gained many more social problems. </p>

<p>Thogh in your argument you used the same style as I used against you, though when you used it its fine and you didn’t even catch yourself using the “Correlation does not imply causation” scheme. </p>

<p>I already have found a solution, its quite simple and ive already explained it.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

Everybody in the world can use the argument of “Correlation does not imply causation”, but its complete bull, there must be something that assumes the correlation of the suggested causation, to think that there is not would say that there can never be correlated causation, and thus even science and the truth could just be considered correlation and then everything falls. There are expectations that we all make in such cases and its foolish for you to play this card, instead of actually defending your stance, because truthfully you really have no ground.

</p>

<p>The important thing, however, is to note that we can have an x and y variable be correlated but have no demonstrated causation between the two. Spurious correlations are everywhere. Just because you can run a OLS regression and get some coefficient doesn’t mean that your results actually mean anything. </p>

<p>

Ive simply shown and argued that as the number of true nuclear family’s decrease, social tensions and problems occur.

</p>

<p>No, you’ve not shown it: you’ve merely argued it. You have offered no data, let alone a model, that really demonstrates your case. </p>

<p>

If what you are saying was to be true, we would need social problems to occur when the rate of the nuclear family was high.

</p>

<p>How do we define “social problem,” though? This is much harder than you make it out to be. </p>

<p>

If it were high and we had the social problems like we did today then you would be correct. Though its not, the rates of the nuclear family are drastically lower and thus in that we have gained many more social problems.

</p>

<p>STD rates are relatively low, crime rates are relatively low, and for the most part people are improving their status in the US. What are these problems that we supposedly have?</p>

<p>I’d like to see data that supports your case. I’ll even do the regressions if you want.</p>

[Dr.Horse]

<p>

</p>

<p>Ah, another one of these “I only like the amendments that I agree with” quasi-libertarians. Hate to break it to you, champ, but Article 5 of the US Constitution clearly states that:</p>

<p>The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.</p>

<p>So you either accept the fact that amendments are a legitimate part of the US constitutional canon, or you invalidate the constitution itself. Sucks, don’t it?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I said I agreed with the original constitution, not the amended one. I actually said that quite a few times. I know exactly what it says about new amendments, and I agree with it, but I don’t feel at least in my research that the founding fathers intended it to be used so freely. So I still do not agree with the amended constitution.</p>

<p>

Let’s look at two STDs and see if they have indeed gone up because of “feminism:”</p>

<p>Gonohrrea</p>

<p>Syphilis</p>

<p>Gonorrhea is particularly interesting. The WW2 jump in rates is pretty easy to explain, and I’d assume the late 1960s-1980s peak is probably due to the “free love/party”-era thinking. But feminism? Hard to argue that for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>How do you measure “feminism” as a trend? Do you measure per capita income of women? Number of never-married women? Number of papers published on the topic? Hard to say.</p></li>
<li><p>Even if we do find a way to measure feminism, we are going to have a lot of “unobserved heterogeneity” in the model-- in other words, lots of other variables we can’t measure. In the case of feminism as an x variable to explain the y variable of STD incidence rate, there are a lot of other factors that come into play that may be as powerful in explaining this phenomenon.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In any case, let’s assume that feminism can be measured: then how do we explain the peaks and drops in various eras? How do we explain that current STD rates (using gonorrhea as a proxy) are lower than they were in the “traditional 1950s?”</p>

<p>Your explanation is lacking.</p>

<p>Also, which “sexual disorders” are on the rise? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well thanks for the charts. The first you show on Gonorrhea, clearly shows the correlation between womans liberation and std’s. I mean it clearly states it.</p>

<p>As for Syphilis there is simply not enough data to go back that far as you can see by your chart which conveniently stops in the 1980’s. Thogh we can see the increase even from then.</p>

<p>Peeks and drops can be simply explained by medication, social trends, etc.</p>

<p>As for sexual disorders, how about the entire list from homosexuality or objectophilia.</p>

<p>Id also love to point out the Divorce rates;
<a href=“http://i28.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/c219/talk2action/marr-divorce_1900-2004-1.gif[/url]”>http://i28.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/c219/talk2action/marr-divorce_1900-2004-1.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Finally, suicide rates are an interesting statistic. Japan, which has probably the lowest rate of divorce in the developed world, also has the highest suicide rate. There appears to be no correlation between divorce and suicide as far as the data I’ve seen goes, so I do look forward to you explaining this one.

</p>

<p>I was talking about teenage suicide, not womans. This chart shows what I mean.</p>

<p><a href=“http://truckandbarter.com/images/suicide1519smaller.GIF[/url]”>http://truckandbarter.com/images/suicide1519smaller.GIF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I also was talking about American culture and not Japans.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What the hell is a “broken” child? This is rather offensive to people who grew up in single-parent households (myself included.)</p>

<p>I also note that the nuclear family is only one of many family constructions, and that much of history has found the extended family to be just as, if not more, common.

</p>

<p>You are a broken child and I’m one to. I to come from a single parent household and
know first hand what can and will go wrong. What I mean is that you and me, we are not balanced, you may feel so now, and its hard to be objective inward but think about it. Eventually it will come out and you will notice what I mean. It took a psychiatrist to tell me how messed up I was, my brothers and sisters also. He said it was incredibly common and the the research I did after he said it remained true.</p>

<p>Nuclear or extended, I consider them equal, though I consider the extended better but its a long show in American culture,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Right. Because we all know that Americans were doing way better before the 1950s. Y’know, when small pox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella were rampant. When many people lacked electricity, access to running water, and the most basic amenities.</p>

<p>Y’know, the “good old days.” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>id rather live then, then having all the problems we have now. id rather live with no electricity then in the Homicide capital of the world.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I call BS on this, being Jewish myself. I know many Jewish mothers who continued their careers even while raising a child. Those children almost all did well for themselves.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I know none so, there cant be any. Unless you have proof, then its just something you are saying. But then again the main objective of my argument was in the attempt to show the need for a balanced family.</p>

[nbnyc44]

<p>You want proof. My grandmother, my mother and almost every one of my friend’s mothers. Come to NYC some time we got a lot of working Jewish women.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

I said I agreed with the original constitution, not the amended one. I actually said that quite a few times. I know exactly what it says about new amendments, and I agree with it, but I don’t feel at least in my research that the founding fathers intended it to be used so freely. So I still do not agree with the amended constitution.

</p>

<p>No, you do not agree with the “original constitution.” You agree with an idealized form of it that has never existed. Remember that the selfsame Founders also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts and made the Louisiana Purchase. Clearly they did not agree with your parochial idealization of what the Constitution was or is meant to be.</p>

<p>

Well thanks for the charts. The first you show on Gonorrhea, clearly shows the correlation between womans liberation and std’s. I mean it clearly states it.

</p>

<p>Really now? Where?</p>

<p>

As for Syphilis there is simply not enough data to go back that far as you can see by your chart which conveniently stops in the 1980’s. Thogh we can see the increase even from then.</p>

<p>Peeks and drops can be simply explained by medication, social trends, etc.

</p>

<p>Peaks and drops cannot be explained by medication, as incidence rates and treatment rates are different. </p>

<p>And social trends as an explanation are murky and difficult to disentangle. That’s the point: we don’t know, and cannot know for sure what causes those lines to do what they do. We can attempt to run regressions, but ultimately there will be far too much unobserved heterogeneity to be sure of our results.</p>

<p>

As for sexual disorders, how about the entire list from homosexuality or objectophilia.

</p>

<p>Homosexuality is a disorder? Why am I not surprised that you consider it a disorder? Also note that we cannot say, for certain, that homosexuality has risen in terms of population percentage. Again, it’s hard to do studies on this because homosexuality is a self-identified status, and we cannot know whether in the past more people simply hid their preference or not. There simply does not exist enough data to make that argument.</p>

<p>As for objectophilia, data please. </p>

<p>

Id also love to point out the Divorce rates;
[Image</a> hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket](<a href=“http://i28.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/c2...900-2004-1.gif]Image”>http://i28.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/c2...900-2004-1.gif)

</p>

<p>Interesting that you point that out. </p>

<p>Here’s that image in a scatterplot:

<a href=“http://i64.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/h198/uclari/Picture2.png[/IMG]”>http://i64.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/h198/uclari/Picture2.png

</a></p>

<p>Now, overlay that over the gonorrhea rates in your head:

<a href=“http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif[/img]”>http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif

</a></p>

<p>While there is some relationship, is it divorce? That’s hard to say. For one, they’re only roughly correlated… at best. So I ran a regression. y = gonorrhea rates in 5 year intervals from 1940 on, x = divorce rates in 5 year intervals from 1940 on.</p>

<p>

<a href=“Photo Storage”>Photo Storage

</a></p>

<p>r^2 is low, and the p-value suggests no significance. I’m an objective Bayesian myself, so I take very little comfort in t-stats or p-values, but it certainly makes your case more difficult. We could do pooled OLS and perhaps get better resolution with more years (hardly any DF here), but it seems to me that it’s a rough start for you.</p>

<p>

I was talking about teenage suicide, not womans. This chart shows what I mean.</p>

<p><a href=“http://truckandbarter.com/images/suicide1519smaller.GIF[/url]”>http://truckandbarter.com/images/suicide1519smaller.GIF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I also was talking about American culture and not Japans.

</p>

<p>Why stop at the US and not submit to a comparative analysis? After all, the strength of your model would be improved if you could demonstrate a similar effect in other countries.</p>

<p>Also note that the chart about teenage suicide can be explained by other factors as well. Divorce began to decrease around 1980, so while divorce decreases, suicide increases. Hard to argue that there’s a 10 year lag on the effects of decreased divorce. Unless perhaps you think we should do ARMA, 1? I’d be glad to do the modeling if you can get raw data. I run R and Stata at no charge.</p>

<p>

You are a broken child and I’m one to. I to come from a single parent household and
know first hand what can and will go wrong. What I mean is that you and me, we are not balanced, you may feel so now, and its hard to be objective inward but think about it. Eventually it will come out and you will notice what I mean. It took a psychiatrist to tell me how messed up I was, my brothers and sisters also. He said it was incredibly common and the the research I did after he said it remained true.

</p>

<p>I also have read a lot of literature that argues otherwise. I don’t claim to be perfect, nor am I exactly balanced, but I know that a lot of my friends who came from two-parent households are subjectively worse off than I am right now. Hell, two of them had drug problems! </p>

<p>

id rather live then, then having all the problems we have now. id rather live with no electricity then in the Homicide capital of the world.

</p>

<p>Of the world? LOL. Which city are you referring to? DC? DC is not the homicide capital of the world. That’s Honduras, last I checked.</p>

<p>By the way, homicide rates have almost dropped back down to 1950s levels:

<a href=“http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/totals.png[/img]”>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/totals.png

</a> Now your challenge is to show me that homicide rates were even lower in the pre-vaccine era. Besides, you’d rather take your chances with smallpox? No way, man. I can always go to gentrified areas if the big bad minorities come after me. </p>

<p>

And I know none so, there cant be any. Unless you have proof, then its just something you are saying. But then again the main objective of my argument was in the attempt to show the need for a balanced family.

</p>

<p>Right. Because your anecdotal evidence is clearly better than mine! That’s how it works!</p>

<p>Look, I’m not arguing in favor of single-parent households. I’m saying you’re attacking strawmen and false demons that don’t exist.</p>

[Dr.Horse]

<p>

You want proof. My grandmother, my mother and almost every one of my friend’s mothers. Come to NYC some time we got a lot of working Jewish women.

</p>

<p>I live in, was born in and will always live in NYC. I can attest the opposite of your statements.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Dr.Horse,</p>

<p>I can introduce you to a working mother who’s also Jewish.</p>

<p>Oh dear, looks like our anecdotal evidence is conflicting. This is a problem.</p>

[JmasterJ]

<p>Haven’t you guys heard? the International Monetary Fund is the real power broker in this world, especially at a time of such dire economic circumstances. Obama is an excellent orator, and offers inspiration for millions but unfortunately he is not on the top of the pyramid. Many people with high-expectations will be disappointed, Obama will have virtually no wiggle room to implement his lofty projects. Obama must feel ****ed at George Walker “texas ranger” Bush and Emperors Greenspan and Bernanke for placing him in such a terrible situation.</p>

[beargoldenbear]

<p>“Take that republicans,” what an inane statement. </p>

<p>First and foremost, This country is a center-right country. Why do I say that? Well, the referendum in California, arguably the most liberal state, voted AGAINST gay marriage. Moreover, the states that had a proposition on afirmative action voted against it. </p>

<p>The only reason Obama, the preacher to the choir on the far left was elected, was because old man McCain could not shatter the image of GWB 2.0. If Mitt Romney was the candidate, I believe we would have a new president-elect.</p>

[nbnyc44]

<p>The referendum was a country wide vote. My father could vote on it and we live in NYC. So your center-right statement would apply for the country. California may be liberal but the entire country who voted isn’t. McCain and Romney were Bush 2.0. None of their policies on Iraq, the economy and the majority of the issues their stances were very similar.</p>

[Shalashaska64]

<p>I had no interest in either candidate, so I can say this:</p>

<p>Obamania is sickening, the media’s coverage of the race was sickening as well.</p>

<p>[URL=<a href="http://www.howobamagotelected.com/“]truth[/URL”&gt;http://www.howobamagotelected.com/"]truth[/URL</a>]</p>

[applejack]

<p>

First and foremost, This country is a center-right country

</p>

<p>That’s a popular Fox News talking point, but I’m not sure it holds up under scrutiny.</p>

<p>The history of America has been one of slow and steady progress against social conservatism toward more individual liberties: end of slavery, abolition, civil rights, environmental stewardship, homosexual equality, and fighting in wars that are important while trying to stop those that aren’t (if you look, all the wars supported by progressives have been both successful and important).</p>

<p>The vote against gay marriage was mostly just due to a concerted effort by a small minority. The larger national trend is toward homosexual equality to love and express love in whatever way individuals see fit, so long as it does not harm others. Likewise, after decades of fighting it, even conservatives are shifting toward supporting sustainable energy production. </p>

<p>Social conservatism is pretty consistently on the wrong side of history, fighting progress until the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favor. It’s an important “brake” at times to make sure we don’t advance more quickly than our culture and institutions can handle, but ultimately plays the role of opposition to human nature’ natural thrust to “a more perfect union” and holding deep scientific truths in the form of dogmatic religion. </p>

<p>Both sides are critical to a functioning Democracy, though.</p>

[Zamzam]

<p>Compared to other industrialized countries, the United States is more towards the right. Sure, we’re more liberal than, say, Iran, but Labour parties are in control of most other industrialized countries.</p>

[Shalashaska64]

<p>I’ll be disappointed if hookem gets into Harvard. What a dirtbag.</p>

[Morsmordre]

<p>“center right” is a difficult term to grapple with. Does it mean “center right” to the world, to Western nations, or to American standards? To the world we are hard right economically and hard left socially. To other Western nations we are certainly center right. By American standards, however, our country is center left. If you looked not just at Barack’s election but also house and senate races you can see that our nation took a big turn towards the left after disappointment from the ruling right. Also don’t cite prop 8 as an excuse to define America as center right. First off, legalizing gay marriage is an extremely liberal issue, though it actually shouldn’t be, I would think abortion is more controversial but whenever someone seems “different” than us it becomes extremist ugh. Secondly, there were several other propositions on the ballot that were rather moderate, such as prop 4 (barring minors get abortions without parental notification) that failed. Indeed every proposition that was on the ballot went towards the liberals side (more money for high speed train, animal rights, etc) except prop 8.</p>

[Icarus]

<p>

That’s a popular Fox News talking point, but I’m not sure it holds up under scrutiny.</p>

<p>The history of America has been one of slow and steady progress against social conservatism toward more individual liberties: end of slavery, abolition, civil rights, environmental stewardship, homosexual equality, and fighting in wars that are important while trying to stop those that aren’t (if you look, all the wars supported by progressives have been both successful and important)… </p>

<p>Social conservatism is pretty consistently on the wrong side of history, fighting progress until the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favor…

</p>

<p>You’re joking right? Liberals/progressives/whatever they want to be called right now are all for individual liberties… as long as “they” are comfortable with such liberties. Which brings me to my biggest complaint - The vast majority of arguments I hear from liberals are emotional in nature. Logic doesn’t really enter into the equation. Thats not to say that there aren’t good logical arguments for certain so-called “liberal causes” like gay marriage, etc. There are actually overwhelming logical arguments for such things. But thats not what I hear from the left. Its always some thinly-veiled emotional argument.
They don’t realize that the whole “don’t legislate your personal opinions/beliefs” bit goes both ways</p>

[Shalashaska64]

<p>Animal Rights? Lawl what a joke, this is the nonsense liberals support that falls in line with Icarus’s post about legislating personal emotions…</p>

<p>I’ll give you an example of how liberals are here in Cambridge. The far southpaw students are mad at Harvard for expanding into Allston in order to house the stem cell department as well as develop the new bioengineering institute (see: Wyss’s 125 mil). Why? Because a few residents are homeless…you’d think a Harvard student would be able to balance the benefits and costs (aka a lot to a little), but no it’s “OH NO HARVARD OFFICIALS ARE HEARTLESS MONSTERS WHO DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYONE” BS propaganda. Quite sickening actually.</p>