Online Now 2644

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 1925
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 2645
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Question for the older posters here

  • Archangel said...

    For me it happened just about the time I had purged my head of all the pie in the sky liberal bullshit the college profs had shoved my way and finally embraced ultra-conservatism. That was about 17 years ago in July. Coincidentally, I got divorced about that same time.

    Wonder if there's a connection.

    A shame you need to blame college professors for your inability to think for yourself but it also sounds like you were so desperate to fit in you bought all the same clothes others did too.

    If you think political views and dress are correlated you need to get out more.

    I buy clothes that last, clothes that fit comfortably, clothes that will be able to be worn for more than one year and clothes that don't blow the family budget.

    When you have a couple of kids or more at home it doesn't take too many months of looking at the monthly finances to realize the need to buy clothes often just to fit as they grow and you are going to be part of the solution by simplifying your wardrobe. Especially if you have any hope of seeing new golf shoes.

    GRR Spartan

  • Archangel said...

    that guy sounds like a badass.

    TUEBOR

  • BrockMidlebrook said...

    Shit, I'll be wearing cargo shorts and flip flops until I'm dead.

    this.

    y2kMgrad

  • GRR Spartan said...

    A shame you need to blame college professors for your inability to think for yourself but it also sounds like you were so desperate to fit in you bought all the same clothes others did too.

    If you think political views and dress are correlated you need to get out more.

    I buy clothes that last, clothes that fit comfortably, clothes that will be able to be worn for more than one year and clothes that don't blow the family budget.

    When you have a couple of kids or more at home it doesn't take too many months of looking at the monthly finances to realize the need to buy clothes often just to fit as they grow and you are going to be part of the solution by simplifying your wardrobe. Especially if you have any hope of seeing new golf shoes.

    You can't see the tongue in cheek swipe? As long as you're going to make assumptions about me I'll make one about you: you sound constipated. You need to relax more.

    signature image signature image signature image

    FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!

    Archangel

  • The Pantry said...

    What happened to you picking an avatar by yesterday?

    It looked like the thread got deleted.

    Keeping the sunshiners in check since 2000.

    Tanfan

  • Tanfan said...

    It looked like the thread got deleted.

    tRCMB: gotta help Tanner out

    Hes still using that generic avatar, and a man with his panache needs something better. Any other nominations?

    michiganstate.247sports.com

    The Pantry

  • The problem with socially liberal/fiscally conservatives is that it's an impossibility (No, Ron Paul doesn't count. Libertarianism is fundamentally at odds with liberalism) The best ways to change things are your vote and your wallet. For some, their wallets (or the understanding/misunderstanding of it) dictate their vote, a vote that typically handicaps social progress on issues of equality and fairness. Fiscal conservativism aims for equality in tax treatment, but not equity - a system that's equal, but not fair. Liberalism generally aims for equal treatment of people through equity in the tax/spending system, at the demise of equality in the tax system - a system that's fair, but not equal.

    Thinking you are socially liberal/fiscal conservative generally indicates a lack of coherence in values and ideology, but again, I think that's where many people generally believe they fall. That lack of coherence has lead us to a system without a clear set of definable, achievable goals. We're pursuing too many aims haphazardly and few to none well.

    This post was edited by b10goody on 8/14/2011 at 8:26 AM

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    The problem with socially liberal/fiscally conservatives is that it's an impossibility (No, Ron Paul doesn't count. Libertarianism is fundamentally at odds with liberalism) The best ways to change things are your vote and your wallet. For some, their wallets (or the understanding/misunderstanding of it) dictate their vote, a vote that typically handicaps social progress on issues of equality and fairness. Fiscal conservativism aims for equality in tax treatment, but not equity - a system that's equal, but not fair. Liberalism generally aims for equal treatment of people through equity in the tax/spending system, at the demise of equality in the tax system - a system that's fair, but not equal.

    Thinking you are socially liberal/fiscal conservative generally indicates a lack of coherence in values and ideology, but again, I think that's where many people generally believe they fall. That lack of coherence has lead us to a system without a clear set of definable, achievable goals. We're pursuing too many aims haphazardly and few to none well.

    Then again I think we spend too much tax a bit too much yet I could care less if a guy wants to suck another guys Wang and fight for our country. Who do I vote for?

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

  • b10goody said...

    The problem with socially liberal/fiscally conservatives is that it's an impossibility (No, Ron Paul doesn't count. Libertarianism is fundamentally at odds with liberalism) The best ways to change things are your vote and your wallet. For some, their wallets (or the understanding/misunderstanding of it) dictate their vote, a vote that typically handicaps social progress on issues of equality and fairness. Fiscal conservativism aims for equality in tax treatment, but not equity - a system that's equal, but not fair. Liberalism generally aims for equal treatment of people through equity in the tax/spending system, at the demise of equality in the tax system - a system that's fair, but not equal.

    Thinking you are socially liberal/fiscal conservative generally indicates a lack of coherence in values and ideology, but again, I think that's where many people generally believe they fall. That lack of coherence has lead us to a system without a clear set of definable, achievable goals. We're pursuing too many aims haphazardly and few to none well.

    I try to vote with my wallet, but it's really hard to punch those tiny buttons with it.

    signature image

    PolskaSpartan ●

  • D.Wags said...

    Then again I think we spend too much tax a bit too much yet I could care less if a guy wants to suck another guys Wang and fight for our country. Who do I vote for?

    To start - you don't have anyone to vote for that supports that. For a few reasons. 1) there are no legit candidates that support that. 2) taxes aren't just about revenue or spending - we spend to achieve our goals as identified by our values. Cutting spending means somebody's values have to be de-prioritized. Typically the values that are pushed aside are ones that link to socially liberal issues.

    Example, allowing gays to marry likely means a larger expenditure on couple's benefits. More couples eligible = more money spent. Do you value their right to marry or your tax cuts more? If you think military spending should be cut, but gays should be allowed to serve, you have to spend money readying the military for their open and honest service. That's an additional expenditure (plus benefits again). So what do you cut in the military to balance it our or even reduce overall spending? Socially liberal generally means you believe everyone should be afforded basic healthcare necessities. How do we provide more while spending less? I'm sure it's possible, but it's not always clear or easy. You could argue that our military spending is too high and is oppressive and imperialist, so we should cut the budget. You could also argue that our military is the world's largest welfare system, helping those in the world that need it most. What do you cut to achieve which value? Want to close the minority-dominant/poor-rich achievement gap in education - takes lots and lots of money, not just for schools, but for community, health, and safety services. Can you cut spending while increasing spending in those areas? Less taxes means higher tuition for higher education, but our public schools should cost less...how do we achieve, while maintaining quality, that by cutting spending on education

    Rules and bureaucracy are just about the only thing that has ever helped the cause of equality - this is why the courts have historically been the place where these accomplishments are cemented into our society. As fiscal conservative, you may not care about equality, but prioritize liberty as a proxy. If you prioritize liberty, then Ron Paul-ish is an okay option, but he certainly can't be described as socially liberal because his fiscal viewpoints prevent achievement of liberal aims. But, on final point, voting for someone like Paul, or any fiscal conservative, means federal court appointments that are fiscally and socially conservative. The courts really hold the power. Gotta vote where you think your values matter most, but they all choices come with some options that will prevent all the values of someone who straddles the aisle of ever being accomplished.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by b10goody on 8/14/2011 at 9:16 AM

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    To start - you don't have anyone to vote for that supports that. For a few reasons. 1) there are no legit candidates that support that. 2) taxes aren't just about revenue or spending - we spend to achieve our goals as identified by our values. Cutting spending means somebody's values have to be de-prioritized. Typically the values that are pushed aside are ones that link to socially liberal issues.

    Example, allowing gays to marry likely means a larger expenditure on couple's benefits. More couples eligible = more money spent. Do you value their right to marry or your tax cuts more? If you think military spending should be cut, but gays should be allowed to serve, you have to spend money readying the military for their open and honest service. That's an additional expenditure (plus benefits again). So what do you cut in the military to balance it our or even reduce overall spending? Socially liberal generally means you believe everyone should be afforded basic healthcare necessities. How do we provide more while spending less? I'm sure it's possible, but it's not always clear or easy. You could argue that our military spending is too high and is oppressive and imperialist, so we should cut the budget. You could also argue that our military is the world's largest welfare system, helping those in the world that need it most. What do you cut to achieve which value? Want to close the minority-dominant/poor-rich achievement gap in education - takes lots and lots of money, not just for schools, but for community, health, and safety services. Can you cut spending while increasing spending in those areas? Less taxes means higher tuition for higher education, but our public schools should cost less...how do we achieve, while maintaining quality, that by cutting spending on education

    Rules and bureaucracy are just about the only thing that has ever helped the cause of equality - this is why the courts have historically been the place where these accomplishments are cemented into our society. A fiscal conservative. You may not care about equality, but prioritize liberty. If you prioritize liberty, then Ron Paul-ish is an okay option, but he certainly can't be described as socially liberal because his fiscal viewpoints prevent achievement of liberal aims.

    Lotta words to tell us most people are single issue voters whose political philosophy is impossible to meet. I hope you aren't on the lecture circuit my butt would be sore

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

  • GASPARTY said...

    "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head." ~Winston Churchill

    Which only proves Churchill wasn't above being wrong.

    Madhatter536 ●

  • Sorry, I just don't have a lot of patience when folks speak in multiplicity, but don't realize the impossibility of their statement. If you really support social liberalism, you have to support fiscally liberal policies or they can never be achieved. If you really support conservative fiscal policies, you don't really also support socially liberal values. I wish people would stop telling people what they wish they were and start telling people what their actions and votes really value.

    b10goody

  • Madhatter536 said...

    Which only proves Churchill wasn't above being wrong.

    I think this is often misattributed to Churchill. Maybe he paraphrased it at some point?

    "The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    .. social liberalism

    Do you mean that in the Rush Limbaugh, Martin Luther King or JS Mills sense?

    Unless you can define that you probably are just repeating someone else's political slogans without understanding them.

    Spartan86

  • b10goody said...

    Sorry, I just don't have a lot of patience when folks speak in multiplicity, but don't realize the impossibility of their statement. If you really support social liberalism, you have to support fiscally liberal policies or they can never be achieved. If you really support conservative fiscal policies, you don't really also support socially liberal values. I wish people would stop telling people what they wish they were and start telling people what their actions and votes really value.

    New rule do it in two sentences or I won't read you. Intellectual diarrhea never impresses the advanced degrees on this board it usually only impresses the guy writing it

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

  • Spartan86 said...

    Do you mean that in the Rush Limbaugh, Martin Luther King or JS Mills sense?

    Unless you can define that you probably are just repeating someone else's political slogans without understanding them.

    Limbaugh isn't worth the discussion.

    MLK, it must be remembered, was a Baptist preacher first, civil rights leader second. Some of the civil rights battles being arguee now he likely wouldn't support. As a general framework, some of his points mirrored the foundations of social liberalism, but certainly not fully. Further, he'd be at odds with some current progressive fights.

    Unbridled liberty creates high inequality and social injustice. While definitions of social liberalism (like everything else) will vary, in the context of this discussion, social liberalism is concerned with minimizing social injustices and inequalities while also striving to maintain liberty, arguing that we don't all have liberty if we're so unequal. While not perfect comparisons, the context of the discussion obviously pushes my framework for it closer to Mills. Regardless, any push to explicitly define the phrase in terms of a historical foundation or another's framework generally will be imperfect because we all understand these things differently and they change throughout history. Good arguments can be made for or against it, but the context of the discussion makes my use of social liberalism, or liberalism, or conservative, pretty clear.

    Also, I haven't heard anyone with such long-winded political slogans, so that can't be right :)

    b10goody

  • D.Wags said...

    New rule do it in two sentences or I won't read you. Intellectual diarrhea never impresses the advanced degrees on this board it usually only impresses the guy writing it

    precisely the American problem. I don't have time to listen and academics aren't worth it.

    Complexities aren't concise, but they're where all of our problems and solutions lie.

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    precisely the American problem. I don't have time to listen and academics aren't worth it.

    Complexities aren't concise, but they're where all of our problems and solutions lie.

    See it's possible! BTW We have time to listen but to belabor a point when it can be made quicker is less efficient, don't you think?

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

  • nah, because the same point isn't made. those who see the point, of course, know it, but usually more is needed to encourage actual deep thinking - to answer the why for those who ask it. Our politicians speak and legislate in bullets - not really working for us.

    Anyway, back to ugly pants. I don't have any. I don't like socks. I won't let go of my birkenstocks. I pretty much wear jersey knit cotton t-shirts everyday. Maybe I like simplicity in my attire because I don't like it in discussion.

    I hope I'm never the old guy the OP discussed. I want to be a different kind of careless and cantankerous. Well on my way.

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    nah, because the same point isn't made. those who see the point, of course, know it, but usually more is needed to encourage actual deep thinking - to answer the why for those who ask it. Our politicians speak and legislate in bullets - not really working for us.

    Anyway, back to ugly pants. I don't have any. I don't like socks. I won't let go of my birkenstocks. I pretty much wear jersey knit cotton t-shirts everyday. Maybe I like simplicity in my attire because I don't like it in discussion.

    I hope I'm never the old guy the OP discussed. I want to be a different kind of careless and cantankerous. Well on my way.

    Words

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

  • b10goody said...

    I hope I'm never the old guy the OP discussed. I want to be a different kind of careless and cantankerous. Well on my way.

    but you will be, because when you are old, those clothes will not be fashionable, the kids may be wearing ruffled button-downs by then. most of the traits listed by the OP were "in" in the 70s and 80s. now they are not.

    Turf

  • Turf said...

    but you will be, because when you are old, those clothes will not be fashionable, the kids may be wearing ruffled button-downs by then. most of the traits listed by the OP were "in" in the 70s and 80s. now they are not.

    Probably true only because the clothes I wear really aren't that fashionable now. Birkenstocks = case in point.

    b10goody

  • D.Wags said...

    Words

    No more than 2 sentences of commentary on Spartan football, the D, Coach D, Cousins, SS, or anything else. Find the solution to all Spartan football problems in no more than 2 sentences.

    b10goody

  • b10goody said...

    No more than 2 sentences of commentary on Spartan football, the D, Coach D, Cousins, SS, or anything else. Find the solution to all Spartan football problems in no more than 2 sentences.

    Two minute drill

    signature image signature image signature image

    DWags ●

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports