qman said:

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

I lived in one of the most affluent counties in the US for 20 years, it was filled with the most highly educated professionals (attorneys, doctors, corporate executives, teachers, PhD's) you could ever find, they were NOT liberals!!  They even voted 60% Republican and I can tell you the one's that voted Democratic weren't liberal, more like conservative moderates.

---

That's simply because Republicans were going to lower their taxes. What's your point?

---

But isn't the foundation of "liberalism" the notion of paying taxes to benefit the disadvantaged?  If they don't embrace taxation to support their liberal ideals, they are NOT LIBERAL.

---

qman said:

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

So they're smart because they voted for an articulate House Negro? You seem to have very low standards and expectations for these "brilliant" liberal voters.

---

You make some impressively terrible arguments. Wouldn't you pick Obama over Hillary?

Are you saying that Republicans are smart because they voted for GWB?

Highly educated people vote Democrat, and lean liberal. You're wrong.

---

I'm suggesting only one thing, the vast majority of educated people are NOT liberal!!  Voting for Obama or Hillary doesn't make one a liberal. Do you know why so many moderates voted for Obama?  Because they hated Romney, is that really an endorsement of Obama?

Also, why is Hillary winning over Sanders?  Shouldn't Sanders be killing her if your premise is correct?

---

No, because the premise is that educated people tend to be more liberal. She has dominated Bernie in the states with the poorest education! lol

You have shown no evidence that education level is correlated with conservativism. You made some anecdotal statements about people you've met. If you want to talk about post grads, let's talk about post-grads. Here, I have this handy little chart:




Also, as I said, states with a more educated populace tend to be more liberal. Do you want to argue against that notion? Also, as I have said, Millennials are the most educated generation in America, and their attitudes tend to be more liberal or independent, but not conservative.

Bigbadwooof said:

She has dominated Bernie in the states with the poorest education! lol

Also, as I said, states with a more educated populace tend to be more liberal. Do you want to argue against that notion?

---

Good points! 

Bigbadwooof said:

The Ecstatic said:

who knew that the Students For A Democratic Society were the antithesis of democracy?


Must have been in that book that shows Bernie is a communist and that trickle down economics is divine revelation.

---

I like fiction books too, but I normally read non-fiction, so I must have missed that one.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Very easily, actually. You can be liberal, in that you believe gays should be allowed to marry, you believe in free speech, you understand that man made climate change is real, you don't support corporate welfare, you don't support war for any reason that is not defense, you support a pathway to citizenship, etc etc. Maybe you don't support higher taxes. Maybe you don't support higher taxes, unless you know those taxes aren't going to be funneled into the military.

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

"Perhaps you would prefer ethnically pure states?"

I think the vast majority of EU citizens don't want Africans and Muslims invading their homelands, I don't think German's mind if a citizen from a bordering nation enters their country, bringing in third world people has been a proven failure.

---

The very use of the word "invading" is problematic with its connotations of an invading army or disease but it does have the more neutral meaning which I'm hoping you mean... Yeh, sure, no one wants to be invaded but that doesnt really answer my question.

having third world immigrants is not a proven failure. As BBW said very well;

Quote:

BBW said:Cultural diversity works just fine, if the relationship between cultures is cultivated properly. Mass immigration is just asking too much too fast.

---

---

Tipote said:

qman said:

Didn't colonized people also have the same opportunities as the British, why did they end up in the predicament they found themselves in?

---

Well many countries had different opportunities at different times. Apparently, the Europeans were particularly successful at Empire and brought African Empires to collapse. Part of the reason European powers went there in the first place (started with Belgium) was that African Empires were so successful and wealthy.

---

qman said:

Tipote said:

qman said:

Didn't colonized people also have the same opportunities as the British, why did they end up in the predicament they found themselves in?

---

Well many countries had different opportunities at different times. Apparently, the Europeans were particularly successful at Empire and brought African Empires to collapse. Part of the reason European powers went there in the first place (started with Belgium) was that African Empires were so successful and wealthy.

---

Did you ever ask yourself how "so successful and wealthy" African Empires were brought to collapse?

---

Bubbles85 said:

Bigbadwooof said:

Very easily, actually. You can be liberal, in that you believe gays should be allowed to marry, you believe in free speech, you understand that man made climate change is real, you don't support corporate welfare, you don't support war for any reason that is not defense, you support a pathway to citizenship, etc etc. Maybe you don't support higher taxes. Maybe you don't support higher taxes, unless you know those taxes aren't going to be funneled into the military.

---

I'm down with a lot of that, but i still wouldn't vote Liberal. I think the main gripe that many people have today with the Liberal stance, comes down to immigration and that is by far one of the biggest reasons for my vote for the right.

I don't have a problem with immigration that is properly managed and controlled and i agree with your stance, that given numbers that allow people to assimilate into a new society properly, cultural diversity can succeed.

But that is not what is happening today and this continuation of uncontrolled, mass migration, has gotten to the point where its out of control and is damaging to our country's and community's. It's driving culture apart, not bringing it together.

No party on the left are prepared to accept this and IMO the left are alienating them selves from voters with this single issue. They're effectively pushing voters not just to the right, but to the far right, as we now see happening right across Europe.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

qman said:

Didn't colonized people also have the same opportunities as the British, why did they end up in the predicament they found themselves in?

---

Well many countries had different opportunities at different times. Apparently, the Europeans were particularly successful at Empire and brought African Empires to collapse. Part of the reason European powers went there in the first place (started with Belgium) was that African Empires were so successful and wealthy.

---

Did you ever ask yourself how "so successful and wealthy" African Empires were brought to collapse?

---

He explained exactly why in his post. They were not as focused on military. Tipote is actually completely correct. Europeans had been warring with each other for a century. They were far more advanced militarily.

---

qman said:

"They were far more advanced militarily"

And in every other aspect of civilization, why was that?

---

LOL at you skirting around racism. You seem to be master of detecting racism when its against whites but not at all the other way..

How are you measuring that Europeans were more advanced in every way?
The difference between Europe and Africa wasn't all that big, and at some times in history African nations were more advanced than Europe, but the gulf of development between Africa and Europe has been widening over hundreds of years. Economic dominance perpetuated inequalities over generations, slavery served as a huge brain drain for Africa and obviously involved the loss of labour and wealth too. Colonisation, the machine of Empire, involved the destruction of countries, massacres of peoples etc to quality for terra nullius laws. This has been going on since the 1400s

Its sort of interesting how some people on here will all too readily jump to notions of "muslim/other invasions", "genocide against Europe by immigration" but yet some still remain in denial about the abuses that have gone the other way. It shows an inherent prejudice when one sees the problems of immigration to Europe but not so much the impact of colonialism over hundreds of years. It reminds me of your view that..  "you can't mix primitive people into sophisticated cultures", do you share colonial era justifications of "sophisticated" cultures fucking over "primitive" people? Can you only understand talking about these issues in terms of "white guilt"?

Tipote said:

qman said:

"They were far more advanced militarily"

And in every other aspect of civilization, why was that?

---

LOL at you skirting around racism. You seem to be master of detecting racism when its against whites but not at all the other way..

How are you measuring that Europeans were more advanced in every way?
The difference between Europe and Africa wasn't all that big, and at some times in history African nations were more advanced than Europe, but the gulf of development between Africa and Europe has been widening over hundreds of years. Economic dominance perpetuated inequalities over generations, slavery served as a huge brain drain for Africa and obviously involved the loss of labour and wealth too. Colonisation, the machine of Empire, involved the destruction of countries, massacres of peoples etc to quality for terra nullius laws. This has been going on since the 1400s

Its sort of interesting how some people on here will all too readily jump to notions of "muslim/other invasions", "genocide against Europe by immigration" but yet some still remain in denial about the abuses that have gone the other way. It shows an inherent prejudice when one sees the problems of immigration to Europe but not so much the impact of colonialism over hundreds of years. It reminds me of your view that..  "you can't mix primitive people into sophisticated cultures", do you share colonial era justifications of "sophisticated" cultures fucking over "primitive" people? Can you only understand talking about these issues in terms of "white guilt"?

---

qman said:

I really don't see the analogy you're trying to establish, European colonialism was a dominate form of foreign policy that benefited their homelands.  This has NOTHING to do with Africans and Muslims fleeing their homelands to become social leeches into the Western world.

---

Quote:

One is a form of domination, the other one is a form of desperation, big difference.

---

Tipote said:

Its sort of interesting how some people on here will all too readily jump to notions of "muslim/other invasions", "genocide against Europe by immigration" but yet some still remain in denial about the abuses that have gone the other way.

---

Bubbles85 said:

It seems that Tipote will resort to any means necessary, as a way to try to justify mass Third World immigration into the developed world.

---

viktor said:

Tipote said:

Its sort of interesting how some people on here will all too readily jump to notions of "muslim/other invasions", "genocide against Europe by immigration" but yet some still remain in denial about the abuses that have gone the other way.

---

For me it's the opposite. I know full well how many people the Europeans killed - and have concluded that it's not outside the possibility of human nature for the Muslims to do something similar in Europe.

---

So youre judging ill-intent of a diverse and uncoordinated group of migrants based on your own countries' historical abuses?

qman said:

Bigbadwooof said:

qman said:

Tipote said:

Well many countries had different opportunities at different times. Apparently, the Europeans were particularly successful at Empire and brought African Empires to collapse. Part of the reason European powers went there in the first place (started with Belgium) was that African Empires were so successful and wealthy.

---

Did you ever ask yourself how "so successful and wealthy" African Empires were brought to collapse?

---

He explained exactly why in his post. They were not as focused on military. Tipote is actually completely correct. Europeans had been warring with each other for a century. They were far more advanced militarily.

---

"They were not as focused on military"

Yet they were constantly fighting each other on their own continent, your statement doesn't make sense.

"They were far more advanced militarily"

And in every other aspect of civilization, why was that?

---