Results 81 to 90 of 90
Public opinion- is subjective and notoriously changeable and easily manipulated.
But speaking of public opinion...
It's how people vote on election day that counts.
What hunches? I'm not talking about Bud's opinion- that's up to him to discuss. But- "opinion", "hunch"- hmm... think about it and then think about what an opinion poll is.
Of course they may do. If they don't then why are people always down on Lieut. Ferret because he is in the military?
Look up the difference between evidence and proof. A proof must be irrefutable to be a proof.
Strawman. That's a classic logical fallacy you have named. No serious evolutionary biologist would probably claim "absolute proof" but based on the evidence they have they have a working hypothesis on which to build a theory.
Pol Pot thought he was progressive too...
Appeal to consensus. Bear in mind that this is RevLeft too...
Progressive is all too often just a trendy word to replace "liberal".
So if I presented a mathematical theorem but just accidentally got some of the symbols wrong it would be okay would it? I could accuse detractors of "dicking around" with numbers and so on...
FFS Given that this is primarily a written meaning then the onus is on people to at least attempt some kind of accuracy in their terminology etc or concede when ambiguity or error occurs.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
When it comes to who is in office yeah, when it comes to public policy not really (because the money makes the policy).
When it comes to public opinion, no elections are not an effective gague, because A: people vote on different issues, B: Most people don't even vote.
So thats a bunch of shit.
What public opinion is, is THEIR FUCKING OPINION, not just what you think might be the case.
Thats what a public opinion poll is, you ask people what their opinion is, and these polls show that when it comes to specific issues, people are more to the left.
What? What does that have anything to do with anything? Your economic interests are what gets you more for less, it has nothing to do with your personal values, thats between you and god, or you and your morals.
All right smart ass, I'll change my words "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE."
Ok, but we are talking about what the word refers too today in the United States ...Pol Pot thought he was progressive too...
I can make arguments about any word using semantics, but its pointless and stupid.
Do you want me to change the word "progressive" to "FURTHER LEFT" than the estabilishment? Are you really gonna be so Anal about words?
Yeah, its an appeal to consensus, because thats how we know waht words mean moron, because there is a consensus.
Do you know what I'm refering too when I say the word "progressive"? If you honestly do not know what I am refering to I'll change the word, if you do, but you still are just being anal about it, then your juts dicking around.
The point of language is to be understood.
Progressive has meant, at leasat in the United States, for over 100 years, "more public control of the economy," its always meant that.
Now if your claiming that me using the word is confusing you because you don't know what I mean, then thats one thing, but if you know what I mean, but you still object because ... I don't know, then your just dicking around.
If people don't vote then they have expressed their opinion too- apathy. The people who do vote also express their opinion, i.e. who they vote for.
So your comment is a bunch of shit really.
And this is our opinion, but we are not saying it's proof of things- unlike you and your OP title.. The fact that poll is seriously flawed, in my opinion, is also something you keep skipping over.
Like what? They pay less tax and other people pay more?
What nonsense. Your economic interests are indeed what benefit you economically and socially and this is why people make value judgements and their subsequence choices. To put it simplistically, someone who was investing in an arms company wouldn't really give a fuck about wars and things would they? Otherwise they wouldn't invest.
It's not overwhelming evidence. One, in my opinion, poorly worded poll is not overwhelming evidence either. All this dramatic language such as "proof" and "overwhelming".
The argument is that proof means proof and evidence means evidence- deal with it. If you want a real semantic argument then you could argue that progressive indicated direction from point A towards point B on a political spectrum but if point A was completely reactionary and rightwing and movement towards point B would be progressive in itself but would not indicate arriving (necessarily) at point B (i.e. leftist/"progressive) position.
Ad hominems....a few fucking tax regulations here and there doesn't really make it all that leftist does it?
Incoherent nonsense.
The point of language is to be understood
Agreed
So try
a) spelling things in a recognisable way
b) using words correctly
c) stop assuming that US usage is universal when it isn't.
Just face it, this silly poll doesn't prove anything, it suggest a trend in thinking at one particular moment in time- highly circumstancial and although interesting not much on which to build a political position.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Or it could express disdain for the political situation where you only get to vote for 2 corporatist parties.
So your comment is really just a bunch of shit.
I doubt that the 70% or so that don't vote do so because they don't care about the economic situation.
Whats the flaw, Comrademan.
You hav'nt pointed it out.
Like there should be a progressive tax policy, single payer health care, get out of the wars, and so on.Like what? They pay less tax and other people pay more?
The option is'nt not they pay less or and I pay more, the option is everyone pays less, and the majority of americans don't want that, beceause they don't believe in market theory.
Someone who was investing in a company would have an economic interest in war. Thats what economic interests are.
Personal values may come into play in what you do, but you economic interests are someting completely different.
I get a feeling you make arguments juts to make them without actually thinking them through.
Economic interests are what benefit you economically, if you don't invest in an arms company, then you don't have an economic interest in war. Why you do or do not invest in that company does'nt matter when your making economic analysis.
Either way, your full of it, economic interests are based on .... economics.
well, I'd say the number of polls out there are pretty overwhelming.
But is all this argumetn just about my chosen lanuage??? Really?
You are really anal about language huh. Why are you making these arguments? What relevance do they have to anything?
A progressive tax makes it more left than the establishment, which is what I said.Ad hominems....
A. If its really a problem for you I'll spell check and type slower, can you RAELLY not grasp points because of my spelling though?
B) I'm using words correctly, i.e. people (except for you) get my point.
C) Considering I'm talking about American politics I use American political terminology, and I said its universal within America.
I silly poll by itself does'nt prove anything, but this is one of many many polls that show the same thing, many of these polls have been here on revleft before, if you don't believe me tell me you don't believe me, I'll look them up for you, then you can apologise for being an anal dickwad.
So the fact that one of these corporatist parties is proposing something slightly less corporatist than the other is to be seen as progressive is it?
Secondly, this is not a debate about the US system- but as I understood it there's nothing to stop someone setting up a party and standing for election. Who was that socialist senator you were posting about before?
Then that is their opinion isn't it? They opine that the economic situation is not important and they are generally apathetic.
Well the fact of the random sample was questioned on just how random it was, not just by me, and also the question sample was shown to be a classic example of loaded questions, not just by me, and so on and so on... read the posts why don't you?
The problem isn't with the issues per se.
The majority of Americans- according to one poll.
So if someone's personal values were say, pacificism they would still invest in an arms manufacturer- either they wouldn't or they would be a hypocrite and thus negate their own values. Economic interests are subjective and are of course tempered by personal value judgements.
I get a feeling you just post the fist dumbass video you find on Youtube proclaiming something or other and then get nasty when people don't agree with you. What do you want a discussion or an echo chamber?
What are my economic interests if they are not to benefit me materially? To benefit materially they serve to improve my own lifestyle and the choices which are defined by my values and personality. Vegans aren't going to invest in a fucking meat processing company are they? Or at least it's not likely is it? Why? Based on their values.
Either way your stating the obvious incorrectly, economic interests are based on interests, which are based on personal issues etc. Economics is just the study thereof and the application.
Define overwhelming, as in massive, as in so many no one could argue differently despite resent results in the US congress?
As for the rest- use words more accurately, it's in your interest in order to further your arguments.
Thank you- case closed. One silly poll, doesn't prove anything- in general polls should be treated with caution and used as circumstancial evidence which is not proof.
Your the one who is being anal because of your crappy poll.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Most of the time its not really significant.
Senator Sanders, but if you honestly believe that the US political system is that simple your wildly mistaken. Its a very organized system to make sure only corporatists get in power.
OBviously there are some exceptions, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
No, their opinion, which is correct, is that voting won't change the economic situation.
I have read the posts, and of coarse polls are not perfect, but we are just considering 1 question, which is'nt really loaded, and not really misleading, and about problems with the phone questioning, sure, but thats how many polls are done.
Also its a much better way to examine public opinion (overall, considering many polls), than trying to follow public policy, which are way way way way more influenced by money than public opinion.
No .... It is. If you are further left on the issues, then you are further left.
Do you have another poll to counter it? (There are more polls btw).
He probably would'nt, but that has nothing to do with eocnomic interests.
WHen your talking about economic interests you take their invesetments and every way they get income.
Obviously his economic interest is not in weapons, BECAUSE he's not invested in weapons, why he is or is'nt has nothing to do with economic theory.
I don't mind when people don't agree with me, but they should have a real point, or some facts, or something, I've taken back things many times when I've been shown wrong. But so far, you hav'nt really presented anything compelling at all.
Economic interests does not deal with values and personality perse. If they are vegans and don't invest in a mean processing company, then w edon't talk about their economic interest in meat companies, they are not part of that equasion.
No .... Economic interests are based on economics. i.e. who gets what and how.
Personal issues are a different issues, when you study economics you take economic decisions and see incentives and power dynamics and see what Economic incentives there are. When it comes to moral incentives or whatever thats a different subject, and really irrelivant to what we are talking about.
The resulst in the US congress ... well, first of all, where was the progressive option? There was none, second, what percentage voted? A very small one, so there we go, shot down immediately.Define overwhelming, as in massive, as in so many no one could argue differently despite resent results in the US congress?
As for the rest- use words more accurately, it's in your interest in order to further your arguments.
As for the rest, I'm pretty sure most everyone else got what I meant.
Well it is evidence, on top of much much more evidence, that goes against washington convention. So my point pretty much stands.
(except for your nitpicking about hte definition of hte word "proof).
Like proletariat and ruling class? Yes, it does seem a little "wooden."
I don't know that they are stupid; they just oversimplify things in order to cope with the complexity of modern life. Why they would want to hang on to 19th century labels with such determination is odd, but hey, it floats their boat.
Ya thats because you're a LIBERAL. Seriously, Cenk is a typical "Proggressive liberal"
Plane delayed.After the Revolution all of the planes will run on time, right? Or was that the other guys that said that.
(I'm doing this from my phone!)
So now that Gack has destroyed the myth that Americans are right leaning with a poll--here's another myth destroyed! It seems a women from the London School of Economics and the Centre for Policy Studies took a poll and found out that women don't want to be equal--allo they want is RICH HUSBANDS!
You have to love these POLLS!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...s-careers.html
(Daily Mail, Vanity Fair: about the same.
That makes sense, hell I would'nt mind a rich wife.
I've seen many statistics and studies showing that women put economic stabilibty pretty high on their list for what they look for in a man.
