• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'We hate the United States': Secessionists rally in Texas

Oddly enough, I recall a couple of liberal pundits, after the 2004 re-election of Bush, stating that "maybe we should let the red states succeed"...because they were bummed out that the aforementioned red states had given the White House to the Republicans again.

I've said it before: Democracy works as long as the 50%-1 is willing to let the 50%+1 rule over them. When they stop being willing to suffer that rule, things start falling apart.

I know many of you scoff, but all it would take would be the passage of one sufficiently inflammatory law to send a significant minority of the population into armed rebellion...which is how the Revolution started.

It just might be better to consider revisiting Federalism and allowing the States more internal autonomy before we get to that point, rather than letting it all come apart at the seams.
 
Oddly enough, I recall a couple of liberal pundits, after the 2004 re-election of Bush, stating that "maybe we should let the red states succeed"...because they were bummed out that the aforementioned red states had given the White House to the Republicans again.

I've said it before: Democracy works as long as the 50%-1 is willing to let the 50%+1 rule over them. When they stop being willing to suffer that rule, things start falling apart.

I know many of you scoff, but all it would take would be the passage of one sufficiently inflammatory law to send a significant minority of the population into armed rebellion...which is how the Revolution started.

It just might be better to consider revisiting Federalism and allowing the States more internal autonomy before we get to that point, rather than letting it all come apart at the seams.

You... you mean.... you mean go back to the Constitutional form of Government.... like, the way it was written?

I'm shocked, truely shocked.

That's so, like, yesterday.

[/sarcasm]
 
I have no problem following generalizations, but you need to identify them as such, not as facts. These are your opinions that you have presented.
A generalization is not the same thing as an opinion. Let me try to explain this to you again (for everyone's benefit).

Men are taller than women.

Generally speaking, this is fact. I need not say that "some men" are taller than "some women" AT THE SAME TIME I'm not implying that every man is taller than every woman.

Guess what?
SUVs are less fuel efficient than cars.
Travel by air is faster than travel by train.
Beef contains more fat than turkey
and on and on and on...

These are facts. Nonetheless, all of these are "generally true" but are not always true. This is not a difficult concept.

Come on! You make me sad for your significant other!
"I'm hungry for some burgers!"
"No you're not, you're overgeneralizing"
"Huh?! No I meant it, I want to eat a burger"
"You say that you want to eat a burger, but what you really mean is that you only want to eat some burgers. Please don't lie to me next time, just tell me that you're generalizing your hunger preference to round, patty-shaped chopped beef of a suitable fat content that is grilled to a precise temperature.":2razz:
 
But, when you issue a proclamation that liberals don't love America, that's both unproveable and offensive. Deal with it.
Nobody claimed that. I really must be in the twilight zone.
 
A generalization is not the same thing as an opinion. Let me try to explain this to you again (for everyone's benefit).

Men are taller than women.

Generally speaking, this is fact. I need not say that "some men" are taller than "some women" AT THE SAME TIME I'm not implying that every man is taller than every woman.

Guess what?
SUVs are less fuel efficient than cars.
Travel by air is faster than travel by train.
Beef contains more fat than turkey
and on and on and on...

These are facts. Nonetheless, all of these are "generally true" but are not always true. This is not a difficult concept.

Come on! You make me sad for your significant other!
"I'm hungry for some burgers!"
"No you're not, you're overgeneralizing"
"Huh?! No I meant it, I want to eat a burger"
"You say that you want to eat a burger, but what you really mean is that you only want to eat some burgers. Please don't lie to me next time, just tell me that you're generalizing your hunger preference to round, patty-shaped chopped beef of a suitable fat content that is grilled to a precise temperature.":2razz:

Bad analogy.

Saying Americans are hungry for burgers is a generalization. This is because there are vegetarians/vegans and those who are restricted from eating them due to health concerns or religion.
 
BTW, there's lots of evidence that liberals are not as happy as conservatives:

An interesting take on the "happy" conservatives, presented by the staff and research students engaged in psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic studies at the University of Sheffield. *

Psycho-Babble On...
The world seen from psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic perspectives
.


Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?

Just to summarise, conservatives are apparently happier than liberals because they have in-built defences so that they don't feel bad about others' suffering. In Kleinian or more general object-relations terms, we might say that they are more successfully splitting; in particular, splitting feeling (and the capacity to empathise) from thought (i.e. the ideological justification for continuing to support a system that perpetrates inequality).

This is then evidence -- now apparently backed up by appropriately 'scientific' studies -- for a long-held belief amongst a number of psycho-social thinkers that capitalism is psychopathological; schizoid, as a Kleinian might say.

Liberal dogma teaches people that they've been oppressed and that they need help from government in order to make their dreams come true (external locus of control).

:doh Hoo-boy. Do you even know the definition of dogma?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Would you kindly provide us with legitimate documentation about these loony established beliefs you claim liberals teach each other? Thanks.



* The University of Sheffield is rated 8th in the UK, 24th in Europe, and 77th in the world in an annual academic ranking of the top 500 universities worldwide published in August 2008 by China's Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Researchers evaluated the universities using several research performance indicators, including the number of highly cited researchers, academic performance, articles in the periodicals Science and Nature, and the number of Nobel prize winners.
 
Nobody claimed that. I really must be in the twilight zone.

1. Opinions don't count here.

2. If you can't link to a source for any statement you make, it's concidered an opinion here.

3. Opinions don't count here.
 
1. Opinions don't count here.

2. If you can't link to a source for any statement you make, it's concidered an opinion here.

3. Opinions don't count here.

No need to be mellodramatic here.

Opinions are fine. Presenting opinions as fact is the problem here.

It's all in the presentation.
 
Bad analogy.

Saying Americans are hungry for burgers is a generalization. This is because there are vegetarians/vegans and those who are restricted from eating them due to health concerns or religion.
Huh? Wouldn't that make your analogy the bad one?
 
No need to be mellodramatic here.

Opinions are fine. Presenting opinions as fact is the problem here.

It's all in the presentation.

I must have forgotten to "[/mellodrama]" (sp). :roll:
 
Last edited:
As I said earlier, I did substantiate my claims. Not as well as I would have liked, but this is a discussion board, no? Are we not allowed to discuss our thoughts until someone else has come to a conclusion? Sheesh.

BTW, there's lots of evidence that liberals are not as happy as conservatives:
(hopefully I can paste links in here)

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic526279.files
/Napier%20Jost%20Why%20Are%20Conservatives%20Happier.pdf

Why are liberals so bummed out?
Why Conservatives Say They Are Happier Than Liberals - US News and World Report

Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative
George F. Will - Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative - washingtonpost.com

It makes sense when you think about it. The democratic party attracts a confederacy of unhappy people: welfare recipients, people living off of social security, certain minority groups, etc. Further, Liberal dogma teaches people that they've been oppressed and that they need help from government in order to make their dreams come true (external locus of control).

Now it may be the case that these people love their country as much as those who are generally happier and don't share that same worldview, but I doubt it.

Your first link does not work. Your second link is to a Q & A with a guy trying to sell his book, and your third link is to an op/ed piece by George Will. So, do you have any real evidence. Considering the nature of the OP here, I would say that conservatives seem much less happy these days. I admit this is just an opinion, but at least it is based on one fact.

While I enjoyed your misrepresentation of liberals, I do find it interesting you have yet to offer even any bad evidence on your original claim, which is that liberals don't love their country as much as "regular people".
 
I'm trying to debate here, and you all want to ignore the thinking part and jump right in to copy what others have thought and decided to write down. If you want to debate, please provide some evidence. It need not be conclusive. The goal here is to weigh evidence from both sides.

Debate works a couple ways. When you express your opinion, and state it as such, the most I can do is say "I disagree". When you make statements as if they are fact, then you need to show evidence or expect to get called on it.
 
Oddly enough, I recall a couple of liberal pundits, after the 2004 re-election of Bush, stating that "maybe we should let the red states succeed"...because they were bummed out that the aforementioned red states had given the White House to the Republicans again.

I've said it before: Democracy works as long as the 50%-1 is willing to let the 50%+1 rule over them. When they stop being willing to suffer that rule, things start falling apart.

I know many of you scoff, but all it would take would be the passage of one sufficiently inflammatory law to send a significant minority of the population into armed rebellion...which is how the Revolution started.

It just might be better to consider revisiting Federalism and allowing the States more internal autonomy before we get to that point, rather than letting it all come apart at the seams.

I don't see things coming apart at the seams any time in the foreseeable future. There are alot of unhappy people right now, but that is the case pretty much always to my mind.
 
Guess what?
SUVs are less fuel efficient than cars.
Travel by air is faster than travel by train.
Beef contains more fat than turkey
and on and on and on...

Those are all document-able. Feel free to document your claim that liberals don't love the country as much as "regular people".
 
An interesting take on the "happy" conservatives, presented by the staff and research students engaged in psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic studies at the University of Sheffield.
Again, conservatives are happier.

If you'd like to debate their explanation in another thread, I'd be happy to. Given the disproportionate amount of money given to charities by conservatives, I find it hard to believe that they're not being empathetic. Of course, maybe we can explain it all away because "capitalism is psychopathological and schizoid" :lol::lol:

* The University of Sheffield is rated 8th in the UK, 24th in Europe, and 77th in the world in an annual academic ranking of the top 500 universities worldwide published in August 2008 by China's Shanghai Jiao Tong University.

Researchers evaluated the universities using several research performance indicators, including the number of highly cited researchers, academic performance, articles in the periodicals Science and Nature, and the number of Nobel prize winners.
psst! Harvard is rated a hell of a lot higher (not that rankings really mean that much)
 
As I said earlier, I did substantiate my claims. Not as well as I would have liked, but this is a discussion board, no? Are we not allowed to discuss our thoughts until someone else has come to a conclusion? Sheesh.

BTW, there's lots of evidence that liberals are not as happy as conservatives:
(hopefully I can paste links in here)

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic526279.files
/Napier%20Jost%20Why%20Are%20Conservatives%20Happier.pdf

Link doesn't work.


1) This is an opinion, with no research done.
2) He identifies correlation NOT causation. If you read the article, he indicates marriage and religion as main factors of happiness, then, without substantiation, states that liberals are less like like to be married and have religion. This does NOT prove the thesis. What it states is that there is a correlation between happiness and marriage/religion. His extrapolation from this is faulty.

Op-Ed...by a noted conservative. He cites the same correlation, not causation as the second link. Nothing that proves your position.

It makes sense when you think about it. The democratic party attracts a confederacy of unhappy people: welfare recipients, people living off of social security, certain minority groups, etc. Further, Liberal dogma teaches people that they've been oppressed and that they need help from government in order to make their dreams come true (external locus of control).

You are posting more conservative groupthink, here.

See what I did?

Now it may be the case that these people love their country as much as those who are generally happier and don't share that same worldview, but I doubt it.

Yet you have still offered no proof for this.
 
That's not the context I was using the pizza analogy. It is a fact that I like pizza... but that doesn't mean I like every single pizza ever made.

Just because YOU like pizza doesn't make pizza yummy. It only makes pizza yummy to YOU. That is what we all are trying to tell you. Your opinion is YOURS, it does not extend to anyone else and it is not a fact.


Have I stumbled into the twilight zone? When you guys have conflicting opinions you call the debate over and hope that someone else will step up to the plate so you'll have a handy link?

No one is calling the debate over. You are trying to present an opinion as a fact. If you are going to do that, show us some substantiation. If not, indicate that it is an opinion.
 
A generalization is not the same thing as an opinion. Let me try to explain this to you again (for everyone's benefit).

Men are taller than women.

Generally speaking, this is fact. I need not say that "some men" are taller than "some women" AT THE SAME TIME I'm not implying that every man is taller than every woman.

This is a verifiable fact.

Guess what?
SUVs are less fuel efficient than cars.
Travel by air is faster than travel by train.
Beef contains more fat than turkey
and on and on and on...
These are all verifiable facts with evidence and data.

These are facts. Nonetheless, all of these are "generally true" but are not always true. This is not a difficult concept.
These can be proven with statistical data. Not a difficult concept.

Come on! You make me sad for your significant other!
"I'm hungry for some burgers!"
"No you're not, you're overgeneralizing"
"Huh?! No I meant it, I want to eat a burger"
"You say that you want to eat a burger, but what you really mean is that you only want to eat some burgers. Please don't lie to me next time, just tell me that you're generalizing your hunger preference to round, patty-shaped chopped beef of a suitable fat content that is grilled to a precise temperature.":2razz:
Your analogy doesn't fit. At all. Try again.
 
It wasn't about a person, it was a generalization about pizza :lol:

I was talking about "I am hungry for a burger."
 
Again, conservatives are happier.

Which is your opinion.

If you'd like to debate their explanation in another thread, I'd be happy to. Given the disproportionate amount of money given to charities by conservatives, I find it hard to believe that they're not being empathetic. Of course, maybe we can explain it all away because "capitalism is psychopathological and schizoid" :lol::lol:

And your conclusion that conservatives give money to charity because they are empathetic is YOUR OPINION. Here...my opinion is that conservatives give more money to charities because they want tax breaks.

See what I did, again?

psst! Harvard is rated a hell of a lot higher (not that rankings really mean that much)

You're right. Rankings mean nothing in this situation.
 
Your first link does not work.
That's why I included the titles. Just put "Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?" into google.

Your second link is to a Q & A with a guy trying to sell his book
Did you want to discuss his arguments, or are you just that close minded?

and your third link is to an op/ed piece by George Will.
...describing a pew research study that you apparently overlooked or really just don't care to learn anything and would rather debate semantics.

Have fun with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom