How many Republicans attended a March for Science today?

OK, so by "liberal" you mean something which other people don't use for the word liberal, something which doesn't appear under any of the entries for the word in the dictionary...

hahaha, it's because - because that's what they are. The meanings of words change over time - "right wing" was once essentially people who supported the monarchy. I assume you don't mean that libertarians have exercised power in a manner which supports the monarchy, so you should recognize that the meanings and associations of words change over time. Liberal is no different in that regard - the meaning and associations of it have changed over time. Just google "classical liberalism" and "modern liberalism" and you'll see that they are starkly different things.

 

possibly as a supporting clause in your attempt to cast the scientific view in a disparaging way? Making it as low as religion. What basis do you have for such an accusation? Or does it come from listening to the news a little too much?

Have you ever presented an idea in a scientific setting? When peers are talked about, it is not Joe down the street type of peer. It is peers who are highly educated, highly intelligent, who know all the arguments, who will go over your equations with utmost scrutiny, and will do everything in their power to tear your ideas down.

Your characterization of science as a belief system is your belief, and does not represent those of us who have worked in scientific endeavors.

 

I'm trying to decide if you don't have very good reading comprehension or if you are deliberately mischaracterizing my comment because you can't answer honestly. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just have a low reading comprehension. So let me try this again.

I said that science was a method of observation and experiment. Now in what way do you find that a disparaging comment? How does that make science as "low" as a religion? How is that statement characterizing science as a belief system?

 

There is no such thing as "progressive Marxists". As a matter of fact, it would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms. "Progressive" means that we're moving (or want to move) into the future (in contrast to "Conservative" which would imply staying or conserving the past). Marxism is an ideology of the past. It was an experiment that died with the fall of the USSR. Cuba is probably the closest to ever come to real "marxism".... and it's now reverting to capitalism. I see no point in calling anybody a "progressive Marxist".

Anyway... I know that was not your point. It's true that there is a certain "bias" towards progressive ideology in higher Education. But that's just because.higher Education requires a bias towards facts. Today, the right, in our country, is definitely not aligned with facts. They are optional and they are non-apologetic about it. They just don't care. It would make absolutely no sense for Universities to align with a political position that tends to side with Global Warming denial (not talking about Climate Change, just AGW), fear of vaccines, that for many years denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, or that smoking caused cancer. or that minimized the effects of pesticides... Even creationism.

So the right has a bad track record with topics that universities are quite clear about. And that's why there is a certain anti-right sentiment.

 

I too was of the belief it actually is about politics. I posted a bit on this march and don't think even one Democrat chose to get into a discussion. I call the thread Curry Corner

 

Wonderful. Now check out Curry Corner and help me make it significant.

 

Are bigger letters supposed to scare me? Trying to force reality to be other than it is? In my dictionary, which is American Heritage, under liberal the following is listed:

If one counts the Greens as a liberal political party, which it clearly is, then I am guilty on all accounts.


Under right wing it lists:

Which is the behavior of libertarian politicians.

 

If one studies all countries that swung for the fences and adopted the way of the Left, and who doubts American democrats swing that way... one discovers those countries were far behind the times. A modern example is North Korea. It enjoys all the privileges one expects from the left. And if one does not like it, they use anti aircraft cannon to execute the non believes.

Why would any American aim at the left wing fences when they could have enjoyed freedom? Even now our freedom to not accept the nonsense sold as climate science is in question. When will there be more laws promoting the left wing view? Believe it or not, the left wingers laws are this day on the books. All about you are laws that sustain the Democrats. Obama enforced them when he was around.

 

And under "classical liberal" it says....

I mean, you realize that "classical" and "modern" are two separate modifiers to liberal which denote two separate meanings... right? Right? You're not going to tell me that African-American and European-American are the same exact thing because the prefixes don't matter, right? Right? Right?

 

This is the definition or portion of the definition of Liberal and Liberalism that Leftist oriented political movements tend to define themselves with and are aligned with:

 

I look at left and right in this way.

Right wing: the team players
Left wing : The umpires

If you notice, democrats create laws. Ask them what is wrong and they bleat, not enough laws.
Ask them what they did over the recent recession they blame Bush for and they say they passed laws
Turn in all directions and there they stand to make more laws.

And when they get done, make more laws. They are never happy with any current laws. Change them.

Even health care. They had to be taken to court.

 

Marxist progressives? Are they scary? Big puffy tails?

Hard sciences? What would that be? Like physics? Physicists are overwhelmingly liberal leaning - by a ratio of something on the order of 9 to 1. Those climate scientists that conservatives like to slander are physicists. Isn't biology also a hard science? Biologists brought us evolution and DNA. Among them the spit is even greater, something like 19 to 1.

Every one of the science popularizers on television and other venues is liberal leaning.

Let us not forget that liberal thought came out of the scientific world view.

 

Sorry today's leftists are about as free thinking as the average Klansman a hundred years ago.

 

Complete drivel. Folks on the left enjoy painting the "science vs. religion" picture. That's complete nonsense, and it's the type of goofy statements that young people buy into without giving it a second thought, which just ends up ticking off those on the right.

Oh, and just for your information, those on the right are still free to attend any college they wish to. Last I checked, admissions folks don't ask for political persuasion on their application forms.

And which of these higher learning institutions are you thumbing your nose at, exactly?

Centre College
Boston College
Kenyon College
DePauw University
Notre Dame
Hampden-Sydney College
Saint Mary’s College
Emory University
Rhodes College​

I could go on, but hopefully even you get the point...

 

I think that your classical/modern division is more or less a hypothetical construction that can't be supported by empirical evidence. Only Libertarians make the differentiation and I'm sure it has more to do with internal bonding than anything else.

 

Then why don't they? Conservatives like to make their silly claim that somehow leftists took over colleges and brainwash students into being liberals. The reality of the situation is that liberal individuals are more likely to strive to be well educated than conservative individuals.

When one looks at demographic maps across the country, the best educated and wealthiest congressional districts almost all are represented by Democrats while the poorest, least educated districts tend to be represented by Republicans. Kind of makes it understandable to see how Republican voters, who overwhelmingly tend to be blue collar, vote for a party whose priorities are for those at the top.

Wasn't Trump supposed to bring jobs back? Is it still too early to say, "I told you so."?

 

sure, sure, "classical liberalism" is just a fabrication of libertarians - it's not a real thing, and it's a complete conspiracy theory that liberals for most of the nation's history were proponents of laissez-faire style capitalism.

 

If you think that laissez faire is what liberalism is all about then you know nothing about liberalism. The core of liberal thought has always been the improvement of the human condition, for all humans. Somehow the greed of right wing economic theory contradicts that very notion.

 

If you're going to insist on childish strawmen and ignoring what has been made painfully obvious, then we're done here.

 

Strawman? Childish? Painful? And we're done? You say that every time that I point out that what you've learnt in the Libertarian Cult doesn't square with reality. When you can show that the liberalism of the likes of say, Denis Diderot or David Hume, or even Adam Smith for that matter, is fundamentally different than my liberalism, then perhaps you could have an argument. Until then I am just going to have keep pointing out how silly Libertarian thought is.

 

You never point out or evidence anything, just babble on obliviously demonstrating your embarrassingly low awareness of politics, political theory, hell, pretty much everything you post to this forum is factually wrong.

Classical liberalism, a very real notion in political theory, as a matter of fact and not opinion, is highly distinct from what is called liberalism today. Classical liberalism is founded on a low, Lockean definition of central state authority, maximal individual freedom, strong property rights, laissez faire economics, limited regulations and tax, rule of law and constitutional republican governance. Modern liberalism, YOUR kind of liberalism, is counter to all these things, founded on mixed, if not socialist collectivist-statism, high central authority, highly regulated mixed economies, high tax. These are facts, not opinions.

"Libertarian" is a political party founded in the 1970s. That is also a fact, not opinion.

My opinion is that one of the saddest, most unfortunate facts of recent political history was the application of the term "liberal" to collectivism.

Oh, and nice try editing Adam Smith out of your post once your googling revealed some inconvenient fact. You aren't fooling anyone.

 

It was my meaning. The Marxists were interfering with our educational system over a century ago, and I call progressives "progressive Marxists" because in he US most liberals are now following Marxist methodology and oftentimes the teachings, because they are being led by people who are pure Marxists and pull their strings well (funded by people like Soros).

 

That is the old definition. You have not yet awoken to the fact that your crowd is now following a different drummer. Liberalism in the US has been subverted by progressive Marxism.

 

Link, please.

 

The Klan is still around. I'm sure you can find a local chapter, and they'll tell you who they identify with - liberals or conservatives.