Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A person who experiences a negative karmic punishment has done something negative, that is clearly the case with karma. Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.

The system of cause and effect was used by ancient Indians in order to keep their caste system alive and well and also helped prevent peasants from trying to become anything but good peasants.

There are negative actions that affect a person's karma and those negative actions garner negative consequences. However people don't see it as a punishment system for some odd reason. There's no 'authority' they say or there are no 'evil acts' yet there are things that create negative karma. These things that create negative karma create it because they are 'bad or evil' according to someone, perhaps the person who created the entire idea of karma.

So, there are positive and negative karmic effects which are caused by positive or negative karmic actions but there are no 'bad' actions.

Somewhere down the line the creator of the karmic system realized that there was good and bad in the universe and that he wanted people to act in a good manner so he created a small punishment/reward system without actually saying punishment/reward. If you practice good actions and fulfill your role's duties then you are reborn into a higher caste. If you continue to do so you eventually reach 'heaven'.

wiki wrote:In most Indian religions, life is not considered to begin with birth and end in death, but as a continuous existence in the present lifetime of the organism and extending beyond. The nature of the actions (karma) committed during the course of each lifetime, (good or ill) determines the future destiny of each being.

halonachos wrote:A person who experiences a negative karmic punishment has done something negative...

Circular.

halonachos wrote:
...that is clearly the case with karma.

No, as I said, negative karma is not a thing.

halonachos wrote:
Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be surprised that you got a C in biology, and that you've had to switch from Pre-Med to Emergency-Technical?

halonachos wrote:
Somewhere down the line the creator of the karmic system realized that there was good and bad in the universe and that he wanted people to act in a good manner so he created a small punishment/reward system without actually saying punishment/reward. If you practice good actions and fulfill your role's duties then you are reborn into a higher caste. If you continue to do so you eventually reach 'heaven'.

Conflation.

dogma wrote:

Crom wrote:
This wasn't suppose to be geared towards you, multiple quotes are not the most efficient on php built forms like this, but the point I was getting at is that if you make under a certain amount you aren't required to file. This doesn't mean people don't file who fit into that category.

Yeah, because ~55% of people earning under ~16k didn't file.

The point you were getting at is that you either didn't read your source, or you couldn't.

Try again.

I think you just like to argue....

People who don't make that much money are not required to file, so of course they are going to have the highest percentage of people who don't pay. I am talking about the middle tier and up. The percentages are exponentially less of people not paying a federal tax income. My point also was that people who break even or gain money back on top of paying their federal tax returns don't get off on every other tax either.

However, I think I made my point and I am done.

You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?

Amaya wrote:You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?

This

It's like say a you just noticed the Platypus looks wacky.

No, as I said, negative karma is not a thing.

In order to try (and fail) to end this, this is true. Negative Karma is something invented by American perceptions of Buddhism and are not accurate. Generally speaking, these inaccurate perceptions on Eastern Religion are why you should never go to Wikipedia for information on them. Wikipedia tends to embrace these inaccuracies due to its over reliance on sources produced in English.

Karma in Buddhism general is neither negative nor positive. It simply is. You can probably find some fringe sects of Buddhism and Hinduism that think otherwise, but applying their beliefs to all Buddhists is like saying Mormon beliefs are shared by all Christians.

Amaya wrote:You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?

I haven't been on this forum long, but man he splits hairs.

Crom wrote:

Amaya wrote:You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?

I haven't been on this forum long, but man he splits hairs.

Needs a stronger shampoo.

Amaya wrote:

Crom wrote:

Amaya wrote:You just now noticed that Dogma likes to argue?

I haven't been on this forum long, but man he splits hairs.

Needs a stronger shampoo.

Amaya will be here all week folks, the 7 O'clock show is the same as the 9 O'clock show.

Crom wrote:
People who don't make that much money are not required to file, so of course they are going to have the highest percentage of people who don't pay.

The problem is that your numbers are wrong, income filing requirements vary by status, but none of them hit 16,000. Even a head of household is required to file if he/she earns more than 12,500.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Now Dharma is different as it is attributed to one's duty due to their societal role, for example a peasant has a dharma different to a ruling lord.

So what you're saying is that I shouldn't be surprised that you got a C in biology, and that you've had to switch from Pre-Med to Emergency-Technical?

I went Emergency-Technical when I was 16, but you can't be an EMT until your 18. Besides, my grades in Biology are utterly fantastic and I don't know if you know this or not, but I placed out of college biology thanks to AP credit. If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Besides my career options are now; corpsman, surgeon, or forensic autopsy technician, mainly because I like to see how people got fethed up because they did some sort of negative karmic action. Now to explain, when I say negative karma I don't mean Fallout 3 karma scale where there is some grand total that determines if you're evil or not, I mean that if you do something bad, something bad will happen. Although in Buddhism they do teach that if you act negatively most of the time you will be reborn into a lesser position.

But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier. For example it would be bad karmicly(there are negative karmic actions that receive negative karmic results and to say otherwise is foolish because it isn't a "fringe" element that says so, its based off of trying to leave Samsara, which is the cycle of life, death, and rebirth), for a soldier to fight against their brother if he was in the opposing army, however it is against his Dharma to not fight his brother because his role is that of a soldier. Figure the odds of a religion trying to control a mass group of people, its not a unique tool to control masses, but they were a bit more subtle about it.

In Christianity they blatantly said x is a sin and if you do x you'll go to hell.

In Buddhism they say that if you do x, you might not be reborn into a higher status.

If you want to tie everything together, including the OP, all poor people have done negative actions and as a result were reborn as poor people to suffer while all rich people are people who have done positive actions and were reborn rich.

halonachos wrote:In Buddhism they say that if you do x, you might not be reborn into a higher status.

This is a Hindu concept not a Buddhist concept and its not really punishment, just natural order. Karmic results are a natural outcome of action and we can only apply 'positive' and 'negative' in hindsight. There's no punishment involved. The Caste system is vital to Hindu religion and a very central aspect of it. Buddhism has mostly rejected it and has a very different view on reincarnation, especially since nearly all Buddhist sects reject the existence of the eternal soul/self (which makes the Buddhist concept of reincarnation almost as mind twisting as the Christian Trinity).

In Buddhism you are reborn into different worlds, not as different things.

buddhanet wrote:Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).

Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.

halonachos wrote:In Buddhism you are reborn into different worlds, not as different things.

buddhanet wrote:Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).

Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.

You need to work on the way you write things nacho . You didn't say 'world' you said 'status' thereby implying the obvious conclusion that you refer to social status. At least that's my conclusion.' Status' as a word is useless for conveying what you apparently meant.

I'll also point out the idea of punishment has no connection to the realms. Rather progress is more based on achievement of spiritual awareness, not as a result of Karmic burden someone may acquire through action (the karmic burden however can impede spiritual progress). You also need to recognize that Buddhism rejects the idea of an eternal self. Their concept of rebirth is less actual rebirth and more like a transference of qualities. This is one of those problems that comes to us as a result of culture defining language. A culture cannot produce words for concepts that don't exist in it and then we get saddled with the limitations of translation.

No, you were right. I meant roles and status at first, but I am now correcting myself by saying that in Buddhism you are 'reborn' into different roles with different motivations.

Hindu uses status and a caste system, and I see it as a sort of 'mind-control' device as most religions are at one point or can be used as a mind control at some point by some people.

halonachos wrote:
If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

All I remember is that you wanted to be a doctor, and that you lamented having a C in biology at one point.

halonachos wrote:
Now to explain, when I say negative karma I don't mean Fallout 3 karma scale where there is some grand total that determines if you're evil or not, I mean that if you do something bad, something bad will happen.

So, you mean the horribly butchered notion of karma popular in the New Age movement.

halonachos wrote:
Although in Buddhism they do teach that if you act negatively most of the time you will be reborn into a lesser position.

Calling the various realms of Buddhism lesser or greater is misleading, as they are not really hierarchical. You're still caught up on comparisons to Abrahamic faiths, and its keeping you from understanding this.

halonachos wrote:
But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier.

No you didn't, and I can go back and point to all the various times you conflated the two (the "phrase" karma/dharma is one you used at least once).

But that's neither here nor there, dharma varies according to the faith being considered, just as karma does. In Buddhism, for example, dharma isn't about duty, but the teachings of Buddha. Dharma isn't really about societal role in Hinduism either, the caste system is based on dharma, but they're not the same.

halonachos wrote:
For example it would be bad karmicly(there are negative karmic actions that receive negative karmic results and to say otherwise is foolish because it isn't a "fringe" element that says so, its based off of trying to leave Samsara, which is the cycle of life, death, and rebirth)...

Why did you place the word fringe in quotes? Its not a word I've used here, and it seems like the quotations were meant derisively.

Though, again, you're making the mistake of looking at this as a matter of hierarchy, which is incorrect. You need to get past this idea of negative and positive karma, because its simply not the right way to look at any Buddhist or Hindu teachings.

Additionally, its important to understand that samsara and nirvana are only dualisitc by way of convention, not metaphysical reality. One does not "ascend" to nirvana by transcending samsara, one realizes the essential truth that they were never distinct.

halonachos wrote:
...for a soldier to fight against their brother if he was in the opposing army, however it is against his Dharma to not fight his brother because his role is that of a soldier. Figure the odds of a religion trying to control a mass group of people, its not a unique tool to control masses, but they were a bit more subtle about it.

You're conflating the political usage of the religion, with the religion itself.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
If you try to insult me, at least get it right instead of proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

All I remember is that you wanted to be a doctor, and that you lamented having a C in biology at one point.

Too bad that is incorrect, I remember that I was lamenting about my C in analytical chemistry. I also remember you using the same exact insult in another discussion in which case I responded by saying the only reason that grade occured was because I didn't do 8% worth of homework in the class.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
But no, Dharma and Karma are different as I said and then you argued that I didn't say, and then I proved that I said; Dharma is one's societal role, for example a 23 year old man with two kids and is a farmer has different Dharma than a 23 year old man with two kids and is a soldier.

No you didn't, and I can go back and point to all the various times you conflated the two (the "phrase" karma/dharma is one you used at least once).

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
You fool, I know it isn't which is why in another post of mine I said "dharma, karma,..." instead of saying dharma/karma. However if you fail to fulfill either, or practice something that gains negative karma you will be punished.

Dharma and karma are very different things, do not use them interchangeably. Their meaning varies according to the tradition being considered, but in general dharma is the natural law of the universe, and karma is the consequence of that law. This is distinct from punishment, because punishment requires agency.

My god, your reading comprehension really is inadequate. I stated that I said in a previous statement that "karma, dharma, and rebirth" are common in some Easter religions. This very separation of karma from dharma by using a comma denotes the fact that I acknowledged them as two separate things but used them in the same list. Hell, I learned about dharma in my Art History class and even learned that it was different from karma because my teacher happens to enjoy the Ramayana and a lot of eastern art.

Dogma, I said it in a listed format, do you want me to show it to you again because I can. You're an idiot who can't understand that commas are used to separate subjects if you are listing them. I also said that I did not say karma/dharma, so next time you want to say that I said that karma and dharma are the same thing I want you to take your foot and put it into your mouth. I said that they were separate, unless you want to say that I said that karma, dharma, and rebirth are all the same thing. Or the next time you list something I will assume that you meant they are all the same thing just like you did.

halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.

Learn to read.

halonachos wrote:
Dogma, I said it in a listed format, do you want me to show it to you again because I can. You're an idiot who can't understand that commas are used to separate subjects if you are listing them.

This is also wrong. Commas do not separate thoughts, they separate concepts (this is a critical distinction in English). If you are listing any set of thoughts you must begin with a semicolon (or colon , depending on procedure) prior to said list, and then intersperse the succeeding thoughts with commas or semicolons depending on the degree of connection.

halonachos wrote:
so next time you want to say that I said that karma and dharma are the same thing I want you to take your foot and put it into your mouth.I said that they were separate, unless you want to say that I said that karma, dharma, and rebirth are all the same thing.

halonachos wrote:
I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions. All in all these are similar to the purpose of the hell christians are aware of. They are forms of punishment for not following the 'rules of the road' so to say. I think Islam believes in a temporary 'hell' if I recall correctly.

Pardon my confusion.

halonachos wrote:
Or the next time you list something I will assume that you meant they are all the same thing just like you did.

You did not merely list something.

halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.

No, you really aren't. And, honestly, it is hilarious.

dogma wrote:

You did not merely list something.

halonachos wrote:I am well aware of Eastern religions and their ways of punishing people who deviate from the paths prescribed by religious texts; karma, dharma, and rebirth are quite common in some Eastern religions.

No, you really aren't. And, honestly, it is hilarious.

In all honesty I find your wonton need to find an argument for the sake of an argument is quite funny, as if it is some sort of way to validate yourself on the internet. Whatever the reason; insecurity, anger, other psychological conditions, or other issues in the real world(maybe you think that I mean all of those are the same as well), I feel quite bad for you.

The fact that you left Dakka for about three days and then came back to respond in this thread shows that you have some sort of grudge or another issue. If I was suspended from Dakka or was preoccupied for a couple of days and saw that the thread I was posting in had not been posted in for almost half a week I would assume the issue was dead and just leave it be.

So, I just want to say that I do honestly feel bad for you Dogma.

halonachos wrote:
In all honesty I find your wonton need to find an argument for the sake of an argument is quite funny, as if it is some sort of way to validate yourself on the internet.

So you've just now found a way to bow out with some semblance of dignity.

halonachos wrote:
Whatever the reason; insecurity, anger, other psychological conditions, or other issues in the real world(maybe you think that I mean all of those are the same as well), I feel quite bad for you.

No, I feel bad for your sort, that cannot even do basic research before coming to any conclusion regarding a thing. It is, quite frankly, hilarious.

halonachos wrote:
The fact that you left Dakka for about three days and then came back to respond in this thread shows that you have some sort of grudge or another issue.

It shows how terribly I view your intellectual capacity given this thread.

You do know Eastern religions are treated more like a philosophy and there is not one set path. The Karmic wheel is viewed slightly different by many different people. There are also internal and external influences on eastern religions. Some love in cities, some live outside cities. Which means some live inside society and some live out. While you can find common grounds among most if not all practitioners there is no set in stone way of this is what it is regardless of what you may think. Where as most western religions state, this is how it is, regardless. There are of course some variances among them, and there are also exceptions.

Arguing over something neither of you even practice is just silly. I studied Buddhism for about 4 years while training in several Chinese (Buddhist) marital arts. I cannot even start to claim I fully understand it, nor that I can say what Buddhism is, what exactly karma is, because it is a philosophy and a state of mind, not some fact you look up in a text book. I don't practice any religion now at all, and I will openly admit I was a pretty liberal Buddhist, only taking the aspects I liked from it and leaving what I didn't.

Crom wrote:You do know Eastern religions are treated more like a philosophy and there is not one set path. The Karmic wheel is viewed slightly different by many different people. There are also internal and external influences on eastern religions. Some love in cities, some live outside cities. Which means some live inside society and some live out. While you can find common grounds among most if not all practitioners there is no set in stone way of this is what it is regardless of what you may think. Where as most western religions state, this is how it is, regardless. There are of course some variances among them, and there are also exceptions.

Arguing over something neither of you even practice is just silly. I studied Buddhism for about 4 years while training in several Chinese (Buddhist) marital arts. I cannot even start to claim I fully understand it, nor that I can say what Buddhism is, what exactly karma is, because it is a philosophy and a state of mind, not some fact you look up in a text book. I don't practice any religion now at all, and I will openly admit I was a pretty liberal Buddhist, only taking the aspects I liked from it and leaving what I didn't.

And this pretty much wins the Eastern Religion argument.

I love you, Mattyrm.

This is not an attempt to drag up a locked argument, but I am going to post a link to a locked argument to prove a point.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/400924.page

The Iranian Christian to Die for Apostasy thread quickly degenerated to the point where the mods locked it.

The locking of the threat further proves my point. (ps please don't get this thread locked by attempting to drag up arguments from the locked thread)

Here is my point: We're so incapable of even having a civilized conversation about religion it's almost impossible for a political party to peacefully contain the hard line atheists and hard line Christians within the same party. The presence of 1 will often drive the other into another party. If we can't even have a civilized conversation about religion on DakkaDakka what chance does the Democratic party have of keeping the peace between Evangelical Christians and Atheists within their own political party where they must set national goals and agendas including hot button issues such as abortion and gay rights.

schadenfreude wrote:This is not an attempt to drag up a locked argument, but I am going to post a link to a locked argument to prove a point.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/400924.page

The Iranian Christian to Die for Apostasy thread quickly degenerated to the point where the mods locked it.

The locking of the threat further proves my point. (ps please don't get this thread locked by attempting to drag up arguments from the locked thread)

Here is my point: We're so incapable of even having a civilized conversation about religion it's almost impossible for a political party to peacefully contain the hard line atheists and hard line Christians within the same party. The presence of 1 will often drive the other into another party. If we can't even have a civilized conversation about religion on DakkaDakka what chance does the Democratic party have of keeping the peace between Evangelical Christians and Atheists within their own political party where they must set national goals and agendas including hot button issues such as abortion and gay rights.

In my honest opinion religion has no place in politics anyway. The problem is not the thread, but a choice few people that feel the need to argue of split hairs and very small irrelevant points. If you don't practice said religion you don't know it. That is the stance I take. I have practiced a few myself and consider myself more of a weak atheist (or ignostic) these days.

The problem with politics is that it has become a spectator's sports and we have become fans, blindly rooting for our home team to win regardless of the topic or stance. Until we can progress past the point of questioning someone's intelligence based on their political affiliation we won't ever have a good conversation that will change anything. This is the simple truth.

So, back on topic. The war on poverty (I hate the term war in this context) is something that is real. The rich have been getting richer and are being allowed to screw over hard working Americans. CEO pay has risen tons in the past two decades, and the USA has the highest paying ratio from common income to top level executive. I don't understand how people can sit there and say this is not the case, these are the facts. There are pros and cons to this system we have created. The rich can lobby, put judges in their pockets, they can corner markets, and the government lets them because they pay the government.

What would the consumer and citizen benefit from the AT&T - T-Mobile merger? Nothing at all. It would cut jobs and AT&T would buy a customer base and jack their prices up to AT&T prices. The GOP wants to cry free enterprise because lets not kid ourselves here, the GOP loves to kiss corporate America's ass. GOP candidates also receive money from these corporations to lobby their opinion, and I am sorry corporations are not people. Rick Perry lobbied for this and guess who has paid him over half a million dollars over the years? AT&T did.

So we have the rich getting richer, and we have corporations not paying their taxes. Google and Facebook only pay a 2.5% tax due to tax loop holes and shuffling money around through foreign counties. That should be illegal. No one gets rich on their own, and everyone uses the services tax dollars pay for. So, why not make it better? Why not boost our economy? Which is driven by the disposable income of the middle class. You give them more money they will buy more goods and services, and when the demands for these said goods and services go up, you will create jobs. That is how a supply and demand economy works, this isn't quantum physics here people. Yet, the GOP likes to complicate it and they like to say well if I cannot save an extra $5 million a year then I cannot pay for my employees salaries and expand my business, but they fail to bring up the fact it works both ways. If people cannot afford to buy your product or your service you won't be expanding your business anyway.

Crom wrote:If you don't practice said religion you don't know it.

Uh huh, and merely practicing means you know it?

I find that insinuation (even if not intended) to be eye-roll inducing, nevermind the utter falsity of the claim (one can study a religion they don't believe in). This applies to political beliefs too- one can understand the opposing party's views even if they don't believe them themselves.

Many just choose not to, and I admit to being guilty of that myself sometimes.

I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.

Just goes to show how little most people care about politics and just vote for whatever party is loudest.

Karon wrote:I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.

Well, to be fair, at least half the population isn't a supporter of either party, and either doesn't vote, votes against the side that scares them the most, or votes for individuals.

But yeah, convincing the working class to vote against their own interests has been a standard part of politics since we've given them the vote.

Karon wrote:I think its hilarious how they say half of the population is Republican, when the Republican Party caters to the rich and the corporations, and not regular middle-class people who make up the majority of their party.

Just goes to show how little most people care about politics and just vote for whatever party is loudest.

Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican. I'd expect that trend to conitnue as the population ages. After all, once you have stuff your view point tends to change when other people are trying to take said stuff.

EDIT: Who's the jerkoff that spoiled a political debate with the usual Dakka religion bad debate?

Frazzled wrote:Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican.

Doesn't it depend on what the question is the poll is asking? The general rule of thumb for as long as I can remember is that Americans tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Polls reflect that upwards of 70% of the population is conservative, not Republican.

Doesn't it depend on what the question is the poll is asking? The general rule of thumb for as long as I can remember is that Americans tend to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

True dat but a general series of polls have people viewing themselves as "conservative." I don't see any issue, based purely on age groups.