Sam is there a reason why you always cherry pick your data? Seriously? And it wouldn’t kill you to actually call out that this is a Cata Institute white paper.
Why don’t you quote the entire data instead of 81% of it? And what are “populists”? Your Cato Institute linked paper doesn’t define it but I infer they are kinda like libertarians.
Besides, I posited that in my personal experience, Libertarians were in higher income brackets. Your table supports that with or without the populists
Yep, actually I am well aware of this. It goest back to why there was a need for ADA in the first place. As a society, we have decided that it is not a survival of the fittest. Rather that we also accomodate those in our society that are less fortunate through birth, chromosomes, circumstances, etc.
You obviously don’t think that the disadvantaged should have special treatment or at least not this much special treatment and have said so. You also think special treatment of the handicapped breeds resentment. What’s your definition of bigotry then?
It did change which is why Hickenlooper has implemented the College in Colorado program to encourage our graduates to go to post-secondary school. But one problem I see is try to name all of the 4 year school not in the Denver-Cheyenne corridor. Off the top of my head
UCCS
CSU-Pueblo
Colorado College
Regis
Mesa State
Western State
Adams State
Fort Lewis College
Did I miss any? Not to say that they aren’t good schools but if you want to go to the top schools in the state like CU, CSU, DU/Illif, UNC you are forced to move to the Denver area. And from whay I have seen, the attitude is that there are two educational Colorados, the haves (Denver-Cheyenne) and the have-nots (everywhere else) and that gap is only getting wider.
There are lots of different kinds of libertarians, high income ones and low income ones :
The one uniting facotr they have however, whatever age group or income group they’re in is that libertarians are a bunch of silly little boys and girls who don’t want to pay taxes.
I’d rather look at, say, someexit polls from actual elections. They don’t tell me that liberals are bunched towards the top end of the income spectrum. They tell me that the further up the income ladder you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican:
Vote by Income
Under $30,000 (17%)
D 57%
R 40%
Other 3%
$30-50,000 (19%)
D 51%
R 46%
Other 3%
$50-75,000 (21%)
D 45%
R 51%
Other 4%
$75-100,000 (15%)
D 42%
R 56%
Other 2%
$100-200,000 (19%)
D 43%
R 56%
Other 1%
$200,000 or More (8%)
D 34%
R 64%
Other 2%
And that’s pretty much what the results have looked like, election after election. There’s a lot of bullshit about effete, well-off liberals, but the reality is that the more well-off someone is, the more likely they are to vote Republican.
Do you claim adherence to any religion or established code of morals or ethics, Sam? I’m just wondering, because I can’t think of one that is well-esteemed that your politics don’t piss and shit all over.
In what way did I cherry pick my data? As the for Cato report, it’s only the container for the PEW report I actually cited. It has nothing to do with CATO. I simply linked to it in that report because I initially couldn’t find the source report on the internet and didn’t have much time to look.
Well, I’ve looked now and eventually found it. Here’s the Pew Report in full, complete with the exact table I linked.
If you think citing Pew is ‘cherry picking’, then tell me what a better source would be - and I hope you’re not going to point to RTFirefly’s exit polling data, because that IS cherry-picking. The people who vote, then agree to an exit poll are a self-selected group.
Populists are nothing like libertarians. I’m surprised that you don’t know what they are. In any event, I’ve linked to the source. Go read it yourself.
As for why I didn’t quote the ‘entire data’ - I quoted PEW exactly. I have no idea why their numbers don’t add up to 100% - my guess is because some people didn’t want to report their income. But I really don’t know - and I don’t appreciate your constant accusations of dishonesty.
Your ‘personal experience’ and about $3.50 will buy you a Latte’ at Starbucks. I prefer to look at actual sociological studies. Maybe that makes me a little more honest than you.
Oh, screw off. Jesus you people just have to go for character assassination every time, don’t you?
Okay, in that case liberals are scared little boys who are terrified of living without a big government nanny to protect them from the big bad world.
Now, does that advance the debate? Or is it just useless blather? It’s the kind of crap I expect to see on Daily KOS or Free Republic. Partisan bilge replacing nuanced thought. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Yes, I’m a Satan worshipper, and I love eating babies and raping women. All libertarians do.
And yes, I do adhere to a code of morals. My morals follow the line of enlightenment thinking from John Locke on forward, which says that humans are born free, and no person or group has a right to enslave others or bend them to their will by force. I believe in the ultimate dignity and sovereignty of the individual, who has a right to live his own life and enter into contract freely with other individuals, so long as he or she does not initiate force against others.
I believe that the proper role of government is to maximize individual rights by preventing some from imposing their will on others through force, fraud and monopoly power. I believe that when markets are possible, they are preferable to government edict, but that markets occasionally fail and government has a role to protect the citizens from the consequences of market failure. But again, the ultimate purpose of government intervention is to enhance liberty.
I do not believe in ‘economic rights’, because such a right cannot exist without taking away the freedom of other individuals who must be compelled to provide the economic rights. For example, you can not guarantee a right to health care without stripping a health care provider of his right to treat who he chooses for his own reasons. You cannot guarantee employment rights for handicapped people without stripping away the rights of a business owner to use his own property as he sees fit and to hire who he wants for his own reasons.
I believe that when government steps beyond that role and attempts social engineering or the large-scale ‘planning’ of society through force, bad things happen.
Stop trotting this tired little trope out. You aren’t bullied here. You’re judged by what you say, which is very often either grossly ill-conceived, or incredibly cold and selfish. I’d rather believe the former, but you seem to be a pretty smart guy, so it’s hard not to lean toward the latter.
You’re going to have to be more specific. You’re speaking in generalities about how you feel a government should be run, not about any specific set of moral, ethical, or religious values. When you say Locke “on forward,” would you include post-enlightenment philosophers of Liberalism such as Bentham and Mill? They would agree with most of what you wrote here on liberty, yet be aghast at what you said about the ADA, citing their utility principle. How have the “horror stories” of “paperwork costs” taken more from you[sup]1[/sup] than standardized accessibility has given to those with disabilities? I’d bet my two functional legs (which I’m grateful every day for) that they haven’t. I saw a guy earlier this evening on the second floor of my building, confined to a wheel chair, getting himself around, who I’m sure would very much love to hear all about how the ADA has ruined your life. Do you care what it’s done for his?
[sup]1[/sup]Collective “you”
I didn’t say I was bullied. You accused me of ‘shitting and pissing’ on every ethical and religious system you can think of. You weren’t being a bully - you were simply throwing out an obnoxious insult. And an ignorant one, at that.
Yeah, it’s hard to teach a class in Libertarian ethics in a message board post. You’re a smart guy - I’m sure you can find the reference material.
Yeah well, libertarianism != utilitarianism.
Look, I understand the good intentions of the Americans with Disabilities act. In practice though, it has all kinds of problems. For another point of view, you can read John Stossell’s article on it at Reason.
I used to work in a classroom with children with autism and it killed me to think they had to get on waiting lists at age eleven for adult services. :mad:
Cherry pick in that you can’t even be bothered to put all the columns in the table you posted so the numbers don’t add. Then someone like me has to go and look up your quote, hunt through the white paper for the table, see that it’s missing some columns, then try to figure out what that all means.
then if one were to look up populists, which is the missing column, a layman like myself might think that there is a big overlap between populists and libertarians. Wiki’sdefinition is: Populism, defined either as an ideology,[1][2][3][4] or (more uncommonly) a political philosophy,[5][6][7] or a type of discourse,[3][6] i.e., of sociopolitical thought that compares “the people” against “the elite”, and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as “political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people’s needs and wishes”.[8] It can be understood as any political discourse that appeals to the general mass of the population, to the “people” as such, regardless of class distinctions and political partisanship—“a folksy appeal to the ‘average guy’ or some allegedly general will”.[10]
Thus rendering your hair splitting of partial data moot. This seems to be a pretty common practice in many of your posts and cites. And that’s just taking the source data at face value.
