Liberal Hypocrisy and local politics

a reply to: theantediluvian

And liberalism/modern progressivism is all about moralizing.

Telling everyone else how to be perfect people without doing any of it themselves.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You know what happens when conservatism takes over complete control of society? You get # like the Middle Ages. A millennium of perpetuating the status quo.

You do realize you just described socialism, right? Conservatism is way way different.

eta...

Do you not realize that your "argument" for "liberal hypocrisy" is basically a rehashed segregationist talking point?

Seriously, are you delusional?

How? How the hell is it a segregationist talking standpoint when people do research and spend money to move to a neighborhood they are comfortable with. Including the local schools. How exactly is that segregationist, THEY moved, they didn't force anyone out, they made the move all on their own, affecting NO ONE but themselves. Now they are being forced to deal with what they moved away from because diversity.

# that.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

It's New York.

It's still an assumption.

I agree with you. Much of NY is super Conservative.

When we assume , it makes and ass out of you and me Ok, sarc off now

a reply to: theantediluvian

You know what happens when conservatism takes over complete control of society? You get # like the Middle Ages. A millennium of perpetuating the status quo.

Yeah like North Korean schools getting ready to move backwards into the South Korean system.

✅😃

a reply to: Vector99

You do realize you just described socialism, right? Conservatism is way different.

I don't think so. A social safety net has been used as far back, that I know of, since ancient Egypt. According to Ben Carson, the pyramids were for grain storage, and according to the Bible, the Pharaoh handed out grain to everyone, including refugees. Even Rome offered free "Bread and Circuses".

It's the best way to keep the uneducated masses pacified, so the elite can "do their thang". That's just conservative wisdom!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99

You do realize you just described socialism, right? Conservatism is way different.

I don't think so. A social safety net has been used as far back, that I know of, since ancient Egypt. According to Ben Carson, the pyramids were for grain storage, and according to the Bible, the Pharaoh handed out grain to everyone, including refugees. Even Rome offered free "Bread and Circuses".

It's the best way to keep the uneducated masses pacified, so the elite can "do their thang". That's just conservative wisdom!

A safety net is just common sense, however a millennium of perpetuating the status quo? That is indeed socialism.

Conservatism is more about to each their own, and deciding your own fate.

Liberalism is about pursuing unrealistic dreams and relying upon others when those dreams don't come true.

Socialism is perpetuating a millennium of the status quo, only to fail after that millennium.

a reply to: ketsuko

You mean like all those closeted Republicans who get outed for same sex relationships? Or maybe the "Moral Majority" that supports the likely sexual assaulter and serial philanderer-in-chief? The politicians who coerce their mistresses into having abortions. The draft dodgers who want military parades in their honor. The public face of the FRC who had two Ashley Madison accounts and had molested his own sisters. The former Speaker of the House who attacked the philandering president while paying hush money to cover up his sexual assault of kids he coached. The President who blabbers about "American First" and still has all his crap made overseas.

There are hypocrites everywhere.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ketsuko

You mean like all those closeted Republicans who get outed for same sex relationships? Or maybe the "Moral Majority" that supports the likely sexual assaulter and serial philanderer-in-chief? The politicians who coerce their mistresses into having abortions. The draft dodgers who want military parades in their honor. The public face of the FRC who had two Ashley Madison accounts and had molested his own sisters. The former Speaker of the House who attacked the philandering president while paying hush money to cover up his sexual assault of kids he coached. The President who blabbers about "American First" and still has all his crap made overseas.

There are hypocrites everywhere.

There are closet progressives in both parties. They suck

a reply to: theantediluvian

His whole argument is that their position changes when it effects them personally. What is a country but a shared land amongst people, in essence a home and a family.

That is the whole point most everyone does what's best for them and their family. Is that not the basis of the conservative philosophy to care for yours first and when left with excess share with those that surround you?

a reply to: Vector99

And your jab at one line providing absolutely nothing to the topic is supposed to be relevant?

Yes, considering that my comment was directly related to the topic.

OP is probably over-assuming, but there still is a topic/issue to discuss.

Over-assuming? So I was correct in my assertion.

Would you like to make a contribution for a change instead of adding one-liners attacking OP's?

Well, you agree with me. Not sure what else I can do for you.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

Of course, what makes me chuckle is that 95% of the people in that room probably are raging liberals.

Probably?

Your entire thread is based on an assumption?

Um...... no. Take a look at the Map. Its the area west of Central Park. Solidly Blue for Democrats. High 80%'s if not some in the 90% range.

Link to voting map

Cool. Thanks for that.

Though, I stand by my assertion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

2016 Election Results NYC neighborhoods

Hmmm, Ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration. The Upper West Side only went about 89% Clinton. /rolleyes

But I'll bet it was a pretty large majority of Clinton/liberal voters in there.

Locally, it's even more blue. One of these Democrat councilmen won re-election with 95% of the vote, so maybe 95% isn't that far wrong after all.

Maybe?

Do you know for sure?

a reply to: introvert

Considering he stated raging liberals it was most likely stated in an exaggerated manner ,but Ketsuko showed the statistics may have been more accurate than he possibly knew.

If they are liberals would their position be hypocritical to you?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Edumakated

Of course, what makes me chuckle is that 95% of the people in that room probably are raging liberals.

Probably?

Your entire thread is based on an assumption?

Yes, an assumption. However, the data makes it clear that it is a fair and reasonably accurate assumption. It also doesn't change the point being made in my OP. It is well known that UWS is pretty liberal. This isn't a completely uninformed assumption.

The point still stands, do you or do you not think it is hypocritical for these folks to be upset about the board of education seeking to diversify the schools and that some of their kids will be attending lower performing schools.

IMHO, too many liberals talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. The same folks will talk about acknowledging white privilege, but now that they can give up some of their privilege, they don't want to...

a reply to: introvert

Well, you agree with me

Well actually I don't, and shown the recent evidence showing the political status of the area I rescind my assertion that the OP was over-assuming. The evidence shows 95% is an accurate number.

Now, would you care to discuss the topic rather than the replies?

What do you think about forceful redistricting of schools for purpose of diversification?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Why are the schools always the problem when they are basically the same from one to the next minus some new paint. Courses are similar, teachers have the same accreditation and kids spend the same number of hours attending. The difference is the STUDENTS. Some schools fail because a) they get no motivation to learn at home and b) they aren't capable of learning at the same levels as higher ranking students. Shocking, isn't it? I know nobody is supposed to point this out but not all kids can learn at the same rate or level regardless of the environment you put them in.

Most city schools are well known for having severe discipline problems, many of which start at home. It is unfair to export the liabilities of such students to schools that don't have those problems - all you do is shuffle the same problems around.

Not everyone can be an engineer or a doctor or a lawyer no matter how much school you inflict on them. That's not to say there is anything "wrong" with such students, only that their natural aptitudes are better for blue collar jobs.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

What we liberals want is for all schools to be equally good, no matter where the neighborhood. Why is it hypocritical to want your kid to be in a good school, as long as you want ALL kids to be in good schools?

Why are the schools always the problem when they are basically the same from one to the next minus some new paint. Courses are similar, teachers have the same accreditation and kids spend the same number of hours attending. The difference is the STUDENTS. Some schools fail because a) they get no motivation to learn at home and b) they aren't capable of learning at the same levels as higher ranking students. Shocking, isn't it? I know nobody is supposed to point this out but not all kids can learn at the same rate or level regardless of the environment you put them in.

Most city schools are well known for having severe discipline problems, many of which start at home. It is unfair to export the liabilities of such students to schools that don't have those problems - all you do is shuffle the same problems around.

Not everyone can be an engineer or a doctor or a lawyer no matter how much school you inflict on them. That's not to say there is anything "wrong" with such students, only that their natural aptitudes are better for blue collar jobs.

Schools reflect the student bodies they serve. It isn't the schools that are good, but the fact the majority of the students are already coming from homes where academic excellence is expected.

As I mentioned in the OP, my town's local schools are excellent. To put things in perspective, our high school has a $100 million surplus. Anyway, a big issue at the school has always been the "achievement gap" between the white students and black students.

The liberal school administrators and residents love to bring up everything under the sun from white privilege, tracking, biased discipline, systematic racism, bias testing, and every trendy excuse as to why the black students don't perform as well on average as the white students. However, the third rail they never want to touch is the single mothers, lack of discipline, and other cultural and social issues. You can't blame the school because we all got the same teachers, books, and resources.

a reply to: TheLead

Considering he stated raging liberals it was most likely stated in an exaggerated manner ,but Ketsuko showed the statistics may have been more accurate than he possibly knew.

Considering he stated "probably", he created a thread based on an assumption.

That was all I was pointing out.

If they are liberals would their position be hypocritical to you?

Sure. It appears this is a case of a "not in my back yard"-sort of situation that we see quite often. Of course it is hypocritical and it is not relegated to one political ideology over another.

That is another reason to say the OP is based on logical fallacies.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheLead

Considering he stated raging liberals it was most likely stated in an exaggerated manner ,but Ketsuko showed the statistics may have been more accurate than he possibly knew.

Considering he stated "probably", he created a thread based on an assumption.

That was all I was pointing out.

If they are liberals would their position be hypocritical to you?

Sure. It appears this is a case of a "not in my back yard"-sort of situation that we see quite often. Of course it is hypocritical and it is not relegated to one political ideology over another.

That is another reason to say the OP is based on logical fallacies.

Aren't you the guy /gal, who said he was impartial?

A quick look at your threads and post history shows a clear bias.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, an assumption. However, the data makes it clear that it is a fair and reasonably accurate assumption. It also doesn't change the point being made in my OP. It is well known that UWS is pretty liberal. This isn't a completely uninformed assumption.

Ok. At least you admit it.

The point still stands, do you or do you not think it is hypocritical for these folks to be upset about the board of education seeking to diversify the schools and that some of their kids will be attending lower performing schools.

Sure, if that is a position that each person involved individually held. Do we know how each person stood on this issue, or are you again assuming based on what you think they believe?

IMHO, too many liberals talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. The same folks will talk about acknowledging white privilege, but now that they can give up some of their privilege, they don't want to...

That is part of the human condition. Plenty of Right Wingers don't walk the walk either.

Other than perpetuating partisan bull#, I'm not sure what point you really have here.