|By Vigilante (Vigilante) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit|
Just a coupla questions for whoever wants to answer.
1. What is your political party affiliation?
2. What are your parents'?
3. What school do you plan on going to (or already attend)?
I could say this is for some random school project, but I am really just curious as to any particular trends that emerge.
Here is my info:
1. Moderate Democrat
2. Very consevative Republicans
|By Ec001 (Ec001) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (far left)
2. Moderates Democrats
3. Carnegie Mellon
|By Everet (Everet) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (liberal, a Howard Dean Democrat)
|By Jennyzsong (Jennyzsong) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit|
1. Green Party
2. Not affiliated (they're generally conservative, but will vote liberal depending)
|By Princess_Banana (Princess_Banana) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit|
1. Populist views (socially liberal, economically conservative)
2. Socially conservative, generally vote Republican
|By Everet (Everet) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit|
princess_Banana so you're one of the new Neocons who are socially liberal, and econimically conservative.
|By Irene975 (Irene975) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit|
1. Green Party
2. Democrats/Greens (depends)
|By Princess_Banana (Princess_Banana) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
yes. exactly. i am a neocon. from outer space.
|By Reidmc (Reidmc) on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit|
they're all from outer space. . .
|By Sanfranstudent (Sanfranstudent) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:04 am: Edit|
1. Very very liberal democrat-what can u say i live in SF
2.mom-liberal dem, dad-moderate dem
3. University of Wisconsin-Madison
|By Jnatkins (Jnatkins) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit|
1. Democrat (pretty far left)
2. Liberal Dems
|By Jrc007 (Jrc007) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit|
1. Democrat (moderately left)
2. Mom: liberal Democrat, father: moderate Democrat
3. University of Pennsylvania
|By Bern700 (Bern700) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:14 am: Edit|
3. University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
|By Greenfan85 (Greenfan85) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit|
1. Very Liberal (green party)
2. Parents aren't politically conscious at all...
3. Dartmouth College
PS - Howard Dean is a moderate democrat at best. He is pro-gun and he cut Medicare and Medicaid benefits while he was governor of Vermont. He also enacted legislation that relaxed pollution standards for corporations. He opposed gay marriage while campaigning; and Vermontís civil-union legislation was in response to a decision made by the Vermont Supreme Court (the most liberal in the country in my opinion). Sorry for the digression, it just makes me very uncomfortable when Howard Dean is regarded as a true progressive. Go big green!!!
|By Zephyrmaster (Zephyrmaster) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit|
|By Everet (Everet) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit|
greenfan- I was mainly talking about Dean being as a straight talker like Harry Truman. Also Howard Dean is for a blanced budget, against the war in iraq, against NCLB, For healthcare for all citizens, Against the patriot act, against the trillion dollar tax cut, he's for campaign finance laws, He raised the minimum wage, He provided health coverage to 99% of his state's children from birth to age 18, He instituted prescription drug coverage to seniors. You make it sound like that howard dean signing the civil union legislation as a peace of cake. However you did know that he could have appealed the decision or change the constitution, he could have stalled for time. Also he wore a bullet proof vest because the conservatives there were running a campaign called "Take back Vermont" that initiated a wide spread upheavel.
Also thats why I'm with the Democratic Party even though I have idealistic views that are more Green but I understand the practicalilty of some policies.
|By Alpinesun (Alpinesun) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit|
|By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 01:09 am: Edit|
1. Currently Democratic because I don't like Bush, but the party doesn't represent in many, many cases what I believe.
Extremely socially liberal (support gay marriage and every other thing you could think of) but more conservative economically. Just against government interference in general.
2. Sort of apolitical, but religious..so mostly conservative.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 01:16 am: Edit|
2. Registered dems but will probobly vote for Bush
|By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 01:23 am: Edit|
1. At the moment, Democratic. But the Republican party isn't actually Republican anymore or otherwise Id be with them, except I'm pro-choice.
2. Mom's somewhere in the middle, dads definitly republican. They're "reformed" hippies...
|By Qbanspice (Qbanspice) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit|
I hope the following is helpful:
1. Former Republican (I made the mistake of voitng for Bush in 2000), current Democrat (Kerry for president). My conservative views in high school were shaped by my enviornment in Orange County, California (a neighboring county of Los Angeles), which is the ideological opposite of Marin County in Northern California (a neighboring county of San Francisco). My youthful conservative views were also shaped by my culture; my parents are from Cuba. Generally, Cubans are fiercely conservative and / or Republican. Today, I am socially liberal (I support gay marriage and abortion, and I am opposed to capital punishment and the "war on terrorism"). I am somewhat economically conservative (but I oppose most "tax cuts" unless they are for people who are below the poverty line). And in case you are wondering, I am an atheist. If you want to know anything else, send me an e-mail.
2. My dad died in 1989. He was once a supporter of Fidel Castro in the 1950s, because he hated Fulgencio Batista (the rightest dictator of Cuba). In the 1980s, he liked Reagan. He was fairly conservative and a Republican, but not religious at all (my mother tells me that he refused his Last Rites on his deathbed). I suppose he was probably an economic conservative (the truth is I am not sure). My mother is somewhat religious, but she never ever goes to mass. She is a registered Republican who voted for Clinton twice. She told me that she hated Reagan. She also thinks Bush is an idiot (she did not even like him in 2000 when I voted for him). I would say she is somewhat conservative and somewhat liberal (it depends on the issue). She seems indifferent about most political matters. One of my most memorable recollections is that my mother went to a "gay marriage" reception in 1992 with her Puerto Rican friend. So I guess she is cool about gays.
3. I am currently enrolled at Orange Coast College (a community college in Costa Mesa, California), but I am hoping to go to nearby USC. I am still waiting for a reply.
|By Fingercuffs2006 (Fingercuffs2006) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:44 am: Edit|
1. Democrat (leaning to the left in west Texas can be dangerous)
3. In the process of transfer applications right now, so I'm in college limbo.
|By Sdsurf69 (Sdsurf69) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:50 am: Edit|
1. Republican/ Libertarian
(socially conservative with some left leaning tendencies on certain issues) Economically Conservative
2. Republican but mom has liberal leanings
|By Duncan79 (Duncan79) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit|
1.Democrat (pretty far left)
2. both registered as unaffiliates..mom usually votes Democratic, dad usually doesn't vote
3. U. of Delaware
|By Mikeclassics (Mikeclassics) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (very far-left, socialist)
2. Moderate Democrats
3. Vassar or Wesleyan
|By Ct04 (Ct04) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:45 pm: Edit|
1. Roughly Democratic (it's like this... Centrists against Bush, or put another way I'd vote for McCain over Kerry)
2. Mom- non-citizen, staunch Democrat Dad- non-citizen, but favors Republicans (he's World Bank, so pro-glo)
|By Itziar (Itziar) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit|
1.) Pretty far left Democrat
2.) One moderate Democrat parent, one rabid Democrat one =)
|By Travisp (Travisp) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit|
1.)Consevative, I hate liberals with pride.
2.)Consevative, support neither parties.
3.)Senior next year at HS.
|By Dreama707 (Dreama707) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 04:26 pm: Edit|
|By Mocksimus (Mocksimus) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit|
1)centrist / conservative
3) University of California San Diego
|By Allena (Allena) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit|
2) Mother is a Democrat, Dad is a Republican
3. University of California Los Angeles
|By Everet (Everet) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit|
Travisp- don't hate, make love. Well i don't like fundies either so I guess we're even, though I don't hate them.
|By Qbanspice (Qbanspice) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit|
Travisp, hate is such a strong word. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal or a conservative. We just have different flavors on our worldviews; this makes life more exciting.
|By Everet (Everet) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit|
just remember there can't be conservatives without liberals.
|By Tosg (Tosg) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit|
1. Generally socially liberal and economically conservative, but I have views on both ends of the spectrum. I'd say I'm closest to a libertarian, but less extreme.
2. My parents are both quite left-wing Democrats.
3. I'm going to Washington University in St. Louis next year.
|By Aceofhearts54 (Aceofhearts54) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit|
1. conservative/libertarian, will vote for Bush
2. Mom is a republican, dad was a democrat. Before my dad died we had dueling sides of the yard with the campaign signs...
3. Rice, UIUC, UMich, Purdue, Wash U... yeah I don't know yet
|By Chemyst (Chemyst) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit|
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit|
1. Rabid liberal like Chemyst.
3. Senior in HS next year
DOWN WITH THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA! DOWN WITH BUSH! UP WITH NADER! RAAH RAAH RAAH!
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit|
1) Democrat/Liberal(you can call me Lefty McLefterson if you wish)
2) Liberals(i'm a flower baby)
3) UC Davis
***please don't vote nader. you know you're just throwing your votes away. don't be foolish, because we need everything it takes to get bush on a one way ticket back to crawford texas. i totally agree with all of you greens, but you really need to vote for kerry. this is serious...
|By Sid_Mathur (Sid_Mathur) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 08:44 pm: Edit|
3) UNC-chapel hill
|By Saam (Saam) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (leftist)
2. Moderate Democrat/Moderate Republican
3. New York University
|By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit|
whoaaa i like how we have almost all democrats!!! and theres pretty much a socialist for every republican
yay for socialism!!
|By Princess_Banana (Princess_Banana) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit|
what else would you expect from (future) college students?? :P
|By Everet (Everet) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 10:58 pm: Edit|
Well basically all new ideas spring from the young generation, and we tend to be more liberal, However it seems as we get older and get a job, married, taxed people become more republican-lite and lose their idealism. My advice to you is keep your idealism because that is where the fountain of ideas spring from.
|By Nenita1985 (Nenita1985) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit|
2-dad: social democrat/mom: democrat
3-I will find out in June (I might end up at University of Maryland at College Park anyways).
|By Chemgirl04 (Chemgirl04) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:14 pm: Edit|
2) Ind. but left leaning
3) Wish I could tell you...but I don't know yet
|By Iflyjets (Iflyjets) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit|
Idealism must, however, be implemented to be of any value. And that's when people become "fiscally aware." I honestly believe that, in principle, most people are "idealistic," but when it comes to funding idealism, most adults become keenly aware of fiscal limitations. Wish there was a perfect answer....but....life is the "ultimate reality show."
|By Pimpdaddy (Pimpdaddy) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit|
1. Far left democrat
2. moderate republican
|By Butrfly955 (Butrfly955) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit|
1. pro-life anti-gun anti-death penalty republican
2. strong republicans
--it looks as though republicans are in the minority here--
|By Santamariachica (Santamariachica) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit|
1. Independent; I think party politics have become so petty and do not effectively cooperate for the nation's overall well-being. (especially in recent years)
2. My parents are both independent (with more Republican and conservative sentiments than liberal or Democrat ones), but they are somewhat apathetic.
3. Mount Holyoke! Hopefully, I can off one of the three schools I'm waitlisted at. As for now, Go, Mount Holyoke Lyons (or Lions)!
|By Jadesark (Jadesark) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 01:20 am: Edit|
1) Democrat (very liberal)
2) moderate,apathetic democrats
3) Boston University
|By Avs21 (Avs21) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 02:54 am: Edit|
1. Right wing Republican
3. UVA or Tulane
Moojuice Conservative Media?!
|By Argilospsychi (Argilospsychi) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 03:46 am: Edit|
Avs: tell me more about republicanism at Tulane
Conservatives are far more idealistic than liberals.
1. Trickle down theory. The corporations will obvioulsy send savings on down the the consumers and create jobs, because they aren't greedy profit obsessed pigs or anything. Actually I think enron and general motors is giving a lecture on that soon.
2. We'll rush into Iraq and spread "freedumm." They'll accept us. No hitches there.
3. Lets cut welfare funds. Because you see the only thing keeping single moms and bankrupt families in poverty is that itty bitty check in the mail. Stop the money and they'll be so motivated that jobs and solutions will suddenly appear
|By Cmck (Cmck) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit|
1. Moderate Republican.
2. Independent (but has Democratic ties and hates that his daughter is Republican).
3. M.C.P.H.S. (some science school in M.A.).
It's as hard being a Republican in Massachusetts as it is being a Democrat in Texas, I'm sure.
|By Tosha0796 (Tosha0796) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 10:58 am: Edit|
Conservatives are ideal? Oh wait, let's listen to liberals -- "Let's remain introverted and let things outside of America do whatever they want and maybe people will love us."
Hey, good plan. Good luck with that.
It was those crazy bloodthirsty conservatives who got us involved in World War II. What the hell were they thinking?!
|By Travisp (Travisp) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit|
Ok, I love liberals but hate their ideas!
|By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit|
1. Moderate Republican (I would have voted for Lieberman)
2. Conservative Republicans
3. Vanderbilt University
Whoever said "conservative media" apparently lives under a rock.
"3. Lets cut welfare funds. Because you see the only thing keeping single moms and bankrupt families in poverty is that itty bitty check in the mail. Stop the money and they'll be so motivated that jobs and solutions will suddenly appear"
That is not true. Democrats throw money to anyone who says they need it...lazy people who just don't want to get a job, women who have eight children out of wedlock and want the government to pay for them all...that is what Republicans want to stop from happening, they don't want to cut people who actually need the money.
|By Tropicanabanana (Tropicanabanana) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
>>>>It was those crazy bloodthirsty conservatives who got us involved in World War II. What the hell were they thinking?!
Wasn't there a strong conservative opposition to entering WWII?
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit|
1. Republican. Go Bush!
2. Immigrants from Vietnam, so they are conservative as well. They fear liberals.
|By Jongleur (Jongleur) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit|
1. Moderate Clintonian Democrat.
2. Don't give a damn about politics.
3. Amherst College
|By Everet (Everet) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit|
Duh we have a conservative media. Basically all the radios are dominated by conservatives. For example Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and etc. The T.V. Networks are dominated by conservatives, Fox News, CBS (they wouldn't play the moveon ad while they played the presidents medicaire stunt). The only balance we have is through the internet.
If I remember correctly the conservatives were against entering WWII because many of them were isolationist.
Of course we have to face reality but that basing on the assumption that idealistic ideas can't be carried out. I mean we might now be able to have all people have healthcare, but we can still try and get as many people we can insured.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 04:27 pm: Edit|
actually air america is on the radio now, which is all liberal talk radio, but it has nowhere near the stronghold that the conservatives have. whatever, limbaugh is a fat pill popping slob.
all of the conservatives who claim support of bush aren't conservatives. they're neo-cons, and pretty stupid for putting faith in bush at that. what do "conservatives" think they are conserving anyways? not the environment, not our natural resources, not our energy, not our debt, not our tax dollars, not our troops, not our children(my education), not the constitution, not the bill of rights, not AMERICA. get it right people. neo-cons; dirty dirty neo-cons.
|By Argilospsychi (Argilospsychi) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit|
" Conservatives are ideal? Oh wait, let's listen to liberals -- "Let's remain introverted and let things outside of America do whatever they want and maybe people will love us.
Hey, good plan. Good luck with that."
It's the republicans and current administration that keeps us introverted and isolated from other nations and the UN. We flew nearly solo when waged a preemptive war against the will of the world and the UN. WE are rogue regime.
"It was those crazy bloodthirsty conservatives who got us involved in World War II. What the hell were they thinking?! "
Japan and Germany both declared war on the US before we declared war on them. We were attacked directly by Japan. We were not attacked nor declared the object of war by Iraq.
|By Alpinesun (Alpinesun) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit|
wow, you guys are oh so smart..
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit|
Yeah, avs21. Conservative media. Like Faux News (you know it's not fair and balanced, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's definately not fair and balanced) and all of talk radio except for measley Air America - Michael Savage, O'Lielly, Tony Snow, and Hannity. Or are you one of those idiots that believes O'Lielly when he says he's an "independent"?
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit|
conservative means conservative usage of government involvment, while liberal means liberal use of government involvment. Its not a concrete thing the conservatives are keeping or that the liberals are using.
|By Avs21 (Avs21) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 08:22 pm: Edit|
Yes Fox News is conservative. Wow one TV station out of how many??! It is called the Hannity and Colmes show not the Hannity show, so don't use Hannity as a example of conservatives dominating the media.
Argilospsychi: Fellow Tulane Student?
|By Isaman (Isaman) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:29 pm: Edit|
I don't like Sean Hannity. He accuses his Liberal guests of "spinning," when he himself "spins" topics the other way around. Bill O'Rielly, however, is cool, despite how rude he may appear to be.
2. Father is a republican. Mother is a Democrat.
3. Plan to attend UCSD.
|By Isaman (Isaman) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit|
And yeah....I think Bill is a conservative....despite his claim of being an independent. Maybe he is jsut very far right?
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit|
The term independent is overused. Just because you do not agree on each issue with your party's mainstream does not mean you arnt in that party. Bill Oreily is a republican.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit|
Avs21, Faux only has Colmes as a tagline on Hannity's show. Colmes is a little wimp and doesn't stick up for what he thinks. It's no wonder, seeing as Hannity chose his spineless "sidekick" himself. When I referred to Hannity, I was actually referencing his afternoon radio show. Note how Faux radio puts Colmes on late night, while anyone east of Arizone is sleeping.
Anything other than Faux must be blatantly liberal as you can't get any more conservative than Faux News. CNN is a decent news source and NBC... well... yech. America doesn't have any really liberal media unless you count Air America. And you really can't because they're quite limited to the internet and a few states.
The media is full of hypocrites. O'Lielly, Savage, Hannity, and Colmes all accuse their opponents of spinning and claiming that they themselves don't spin. That's complete bull. At least those on the media fringe - Moore and Franken for example, both liberals - know who they support and aren't afraid to say that they're liberally biased. Don't even get me started on Ann Coulter.
Anyone who thinks the Hannity and Colmes show equally represents both ends of the political spectrum is a fool. Colmes is Hannity's lapdog and has no backbone of his own.
|By Benzo415 (Benzo415) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit|
Me: moderate-liberal, I guess I'd call myself a Democrat even though I'm fed up with all the political parties right now.
Parents: both liberal Democrats (Mom hated Clinton)
College: Talk to me at this time next year...
|By Benzo415 (Benzo415) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 12:06 am: Edit|
Alan Colmes has to be one of the biggest wimps (and hypocrite) I've ever seen. He irks me more than Hannity, because at least Hannity comes out clean with his very conservative views while Colmes pretends to be liberal but agrees with Hannity most of the time.
Except for Fox News, I don't think the media is either conservative or liberal on a whole. Just because the editorial pages are slanted one way or another (i.e. the NY Times slanted liberally and Wall St. Journal conservative) doesn't mean they won't give the reader fair and balanced reporting.
As for the "liberal radio network," Michael Moore put it best when he said, "What next? A liberal Pony Express?"
|By Tmarsh86 (Tmarsh86) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 01:05 am: Edit|
1. Populist, socially mostly liberal, economically strongly conservative. will vote republican because I am selfish because I am strongly against government interference. big howard dean fan
2. republicans that voted clinton
|By Silverstar (Silverstar) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 02:30 am: Edit|
1. liberal lefty
2. moderate democrats
|By Valpal (Valpal) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 02:43 am: Edit|
It's true that extreme conservatives dominate the AM talk radio format. However, their liberal counterparts have made numerous attempts to break into this market with very little success. It's not that they have been prevented from launching such shows, it's just that they fail to garner much in the way of listenership. I believe this is because liberals, on the whole, don't tune into AM radio. But Bubba, with his memberships in the NRA and Southern Baptist Convention, feels that AM talk radio is the only media forum which hosts shows expressing his political point of view. They reflect his, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" mindset. Sure, these shows are highly bombastic and not balanced in the least, but their listenership represents a relatively small percentage of the populace. Honestly, there really is no reason to reference them as representative of "an overwhelmingly conservative media".
I suspect that AM radio shows expressing extreme liberal ideology fail to garner listenership because liberals look to other formats to confirm their political point of view. AirAmerica might change this, but first, liberals will have to adopt a habit of tuning into AM radio for their political commentary. AM talk radio was nowhere on my radar screen until the FM band of my car radio bit the dust one day, and I could no longer tune into National Public Radio. It was an eye opening experience to say the least. Michael Savage is the radio equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, but sometimes, I'd find him bringing me up short on a assumption I'd held forever, and making me think.
But, what's really sorely lacking in American media is the courage to seriously weigh ALL sides of any issue, and to present it so that the American public can make an honestly accessed judgement. Anyone identifying himself as a far leftwing liberal will undoubted believe that "the Media" excercises a conservative bias. The opposite will be said of the extreme conservative. Certainly, no one should be surprised by this.
It doesn't take a great deal of courage, or intellectual integrity to allow one's political views to be prescribed by the dogmas of a particular political persuasion, especially the ones at either extreme---most of the time, people just follow the crowd that predominates among their peers. It seems to me that the courage to honestly think for oneself is in far too short supply. Sheepishly, I admit that I fall into this category more often than I should.
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 03:24 am: Edit|
1. Libertarian is the closest approximation of my beliefs, although I am a registered Republican because I didn't want to register as an independent. I plan on voting for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils (I loathe Kerry he was my least favorite of all nine Democratic candidates except for Kucinich. My favorite was Dean because as someone said earlier if you actually looked closely at he policies he wasn't all that liberal. He just appeared progressive because he was the first one to start shouting "Down with Bush!" when everyone else was too afraid.)
2. Dad: Reaganesque conservative, Mom: Party-line Republican
|By Reverie (Reverie) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:08 am: Edit|
2. Father: Republican; Mother: no affiliation
|By Sdsurf69 (Sdsurf69) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:13 am: Edit|
I wonder how many will still be democrats when they realize that when they work hard and earn a nice salary that most of it will go to the government, which due to its inefficiency will waste most of it.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:22 am: Edit|
probably none, sdsurf69. we don't think that simplistically. republicans wish that we did; then we'd be republicans.
have you all taken a look at the gwbush and johnkerry websites? the bush site is just slinging mud fast and furiously; most of it coming in simplistic arguments, such as "john kerry will raise the price of gas, etc." stupid.
|By Reverie (Reverie) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:24 am: Edit|
Don't be silly, Sdsurf69. Democrats don't like to work. Just kidding. Or am I.
"Except for Fox News, I don't think the media is either conservative or liberal on a whole. Just because the editorial pages are slanted one way or another (i.e. the NY Times slanted liberally and Wall St. Journal conservative) doesn't mean they won't give the reader fair and balanced reporting.
As for the "liberal radio network," Michael Moore put it best when he said, "What next? A liberal Pony Express?" "
Don't be so stupid. You can admit that Fox News is right-leaning, yet refuse to acknowledge the liberal bias of many other media sources? Some aren't so apparent, while others are oozing.
BTW, Michael Moore is a hypocritical, lying douchebag. Don't ever quote his words and use it to better your point, you'll just fall flat on your face. Oh, and he's fat.
|By Sardonia (Sardonia) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 05:41 am: Edit|
conservitards are liars, thieves, and oligarchical teat suckers
|By Londonfields (Londonfields) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 06:00 am: Edit|
2. Liberal (mom)/ Independent (dad)
3. UC Berkeley
|By Taru (Taru) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 06:53 am: Edit|
Reverie--Calling Michael Moore "fat" in your argument against him won't help your case. His appearance has nothing to do with his political positions, obviously.
|By Taru (Taru) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 06:55 am: Edit|
P.S. And trying replacing "Michael Moore" with "Dick Cheney" in your last paragraph.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 11:58 am: Edit|
Valpal, I agree to some extent. I already listen to Savage, O'Lielly, and Hannity on their radio shows. I'm just hoping we can get Air America here someday. Us red doper diaper babies want some radio here too! It's important to show an issue from all sides because it's impossibly to be completely objective about it. I don't think it's bad that Faux news is conservative but what is awful is that they call themselves "fair and balanced". They apparently can't just admit their biasness.
Chasgoose, Dean was "revolutionary" not only because he started shouting "Down with Bush" but because he wanted to change how campaigning was done. He tried to move back to a grassroots style of campaigning, focused on college aged youth, and developed a blog/website before any one else did.
Sdsurf69, the fact is that your government is the organization that's going to pay for your roads, your public education, defend you and rescue you from fires and muggings. Private corporations don't give a damn about you so we need taxes to aid ourselves.
Reverie, you can't make generalizations that all liberals don't like to work. That's just idiotic. Why don't you give us some examples of oozing liberal media? Oh, you can't? Yeah, that's obvious as you're apparently an idiot who just quotes what he hears and reads and doesn't think for himself. That's the worst kind of voter, someone who doesn't have his own opinion. As a liberal, I'd say it's better to be a conservative than a brainwashed liberal. At least you'd be able to think for yourself.
|By Ticklemepink (Ticklemepink) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit|
1. Registered Democrat. But there are some issues that I *gasp* agree with the Republicans but that's more related to my moral views.
2. Both independent. Mom voted for Gore, Dad voted for Bush (Now we are threatening him not to!)
3. Smith College
|By Audreyhepburn (Audreyhepburn) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
1)as liberal as it gets
2)well, let's put it this way- my dad voted for al sharpton in the primaries
|By Nitroxideracer (Nitroxideracer) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit|
1. Republican / Conservative: There are so many things I would love to comment on just on this page, but I don't have enough space, so I'll pick my favorites.
~Obanspice: "I oppose most tax cuts unless they are for people below the poverty line." Right. That sounds like a good idea except for one minor problem: people below the poverty line don't pay taxes.
FACT: in 2003, 41% of Americans with jobs did not pay taxes.
FACT: The top 1% of taxpayers pay TEN TIMES MORE TAXES than do the bottom 50% (IRS data on both)
~That thing about idealism: On this board particularly, the vast majority of students are liberals, which is fine for them. Being an idealist is great. But the moment you learn basic economics from a college professor who isn't a marxist, the moment you step into the REAL WORLD, work and pay taxes, and understand what welfare and redistribution of the wealth really is, you become an undying conservative. Unless your head is parked so far up your a** that the only way you see the light of day is when you yawn.
~What it means to be a conservative or liberal in America: A liberal is someone who advocates government control of everything (it is socialism folks), while a conservative advocates government control of the bare essentials and nothing more. The history of the 20th Century has definitavely shown that every nation that moved closer to liberalism (they call it socialism) became poorer as a nation. There are dozens of examples, but the best ones are the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Sweden, France, Tanzania, and North Korea. Meanwhile, every nation that moved closer to conservatism became richer as a nation. They best examples are Japan after WWII, Hong Kong, South Korea after the Korean War, and America under Reagan. The bottom line: you cannot make a nation richer by punishing the most productive (aka richest) citizens, and by rewarding the least productive (aka laziest).
FACT: 89% of American millionaires are self-made.
The American dream is alive and well. Most of us on this board are living proof of that. But there is a way to kill the American dream: become a liberal, and turn America socialist.
2. Republican / Conservative: My parents are immigrants from the Soviet Union. They came to America in 1989 with $2000, not knowing a word of English and having no friends here. They are now successful citizens who are the very embodiment of the American Dream. They achieved this through hard work and sacrifice. Nobody gave them a hand-out, nobody gave them welfare, and nobody really gave a damn about them. But the greatest threat to their ascension of wealth in this country: unfair taxation and wasteful government.
3. Vanderbilt: Consider who my parents are. They were not rich, and I know better English than they do. I was educated in public schools my whole life, and I am not an under-represented minority. But I'm going to one of the best schools in the country 'cuz I earned it. I am living proof that uninhibited capitalism works!
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit|
ya moojuice is right.
here's the difference between democrats and republicans(liberals and conservatives):
liberals think. neo-cons don't. the republican party actually discourages thinking or formulating your own values or opinions, and this is why it is so messed up. liberal isn't a blanket statement. there are different degrees, and one liberal might have an opposite opinion of another. neo-cons on the other hand won't. they're too caught up in believing anything and everything the bush administration says. bill "O'Really?" could say that john kerry was actually an alien from planet z and neo-cons would continue to smile and nod. i think this is why the republican party has so much more unification than the democratic party. republicans tell you what to think while the democrats support free thought. for a while i had a bumper sticker on my car that said, "Vote Republican!!!(it's easier than thinking!)," however i took it off for fear of getting my car keyed(i live in the OC). so my point is this: all of you self proclaimed republicans need to start thinking for a change. your not only doing yourself a favor but the entire world as well.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit|
"liberals think. neo-cons don't. the republican party actually discourages thinking or formulating your own values or opinions, and this is why it is so messed up."
Doesn't sound like you thought that much making that statement. Makes you look pretty dumb and like a "non-thinker." I am just laughing at you right now. It is comments like these that really repell me from liberalism. They seem so intolerant and so stubborn of different opinions.
Right now most of you are liberals, but once you enter the real world, come down from your ivy league schools, work, pay taxes, and become educated in basic economics, things will become much more conservative for you.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
netroxideracer and bunmushroom, both have parents who have actually experienced liberalism unlike you upper-middle class people living in a bubble telling poor people what is good for them and making them into victims.
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit|
Wow, eyesclozedtight, that was the most close-minded thing I have ever read. That is just another typical attack on conservatives that pisses me off so. You are all so hypocritical saying you are so free and open minded yet whenever anyone so much as expresses their support of a conservative belief you immediately characterize them as unthinking and stupid. I am a registered Republican, yet I disagree with a good number of Republican issues and oftentimes with President Bush (ask any real Republican and they will tell you that he is not a true Republican, although he is definitely better than Kerry, the slimiest of all the Democratic presidential candidates). If Dean had won the nomination, I seriously would have considered voting for him (because as I have said before his actual policies were quite moderate and for me he was conservative and liberal in all the right places) but now that we have Kerry my choice is easy.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit|
Yes, that was a closed minded comment but I think there's some truth to it. It seems to me like the majority of those who listen to conservative talk radio will believe whatever they hear. I recently heard Savage claiming that the mafia started World War I by bombing the Lusitania in a New York harbor. That's complete rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about the history of WWI knows the Germans sunk the Lusitania in the north Atlantic. This is the type of innacurate garbage Fox is letting their talk show hosts say. And the scary part is that the majority of Savage's listeners probably just nodded and added the mafia to their hate-list (...for innacurate reasons...) along with liberals and anyone who has a different opinion than their own.
The media is training people to hate blindly. Savage and O'Lielly, I think even more than Hannity, along with Moore preach the need to hate anyone with a different opinion. Savage so blatantly despises any of his callers who has a different point of view. He cuts them off, hangs up on them, and ridicules the caller for not having the guts to stay on the line. Then he yells about how much of a disgrace liberals are because they don't blindly follow Bush. He'd be trashtalking Kerry if Kerry was President right now. That'd be unpatriotic. Talk about hypocritical.
Like I said before, there's nothing worse than a closed minded voter of either political party. I agree with eyesclozedtight however when he says that conservatives are generally more closed minded than liberals. I think this is due to the fact that radio based media is so overwhelmingly conservative. People are just exposed to conservative biase more often than liberal bias. You can't watch "liberal TV" (whatever that may be) in the car but you can listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage scream their heads off at anyone who sports an original idea.
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit|
I hate the O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity crowd too. Just like I hate the Michael Moore, Maureen O'Dowd, Frank Rich crowd.
|By Synapse (Synapse) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit|
1. Moderate Republican
2. Conservative Republicans (Voting for Bush most likely)
3. Suny Binghamton (most likely)
|By Xmatt (Xmatt) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit|
1. Registered democrat. Socially liberal, fiscally moderate.
2. Slightly more liberal.
|By Caliel130 (Caliel130) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit|
2. Moderate Democrat/Republican (mom/dad)
-Down w/ Bush supporters-
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 06:30 pm: Edit|
radio might be conservative, but network tv, print, and the major magazines are to the left.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit|
Network TV is not to the left... Faux news is the total opposite of liberal and CNN is not liberal either. CNN is the most balanced source of news our country offers. I personally think Time and Newsweek are pretty moderate as well. Network TV is most certainly not liberal.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit|
i don't think i was being closed minded at all. perhaps i was hasty in characterizing republicans that way, but i will certainly continue to characterize bush line neo-cons(there is a very big difference between a republican, a conservative, and a neo-con, and i sort of explained it in an earlier post). i don't care if you agree with me or not(this is politics after all), but it's true. fundamentalist right wing christians and neo-cons tend to do whatever any jingo monkey or the bible told them to. i respect anyone who will vote for bush, but not until they've put serious thought into it. i know people personally who havn't and i will continue to criticize them for it. but seriously, just last week the conservative party in canada created a pamphlet for conservative candidates for office that outlined where they were supposed to stand on issues. give me a break! if you need someone at the top to tell you how to think, you've got some serious issues. so to addresss chasgoose: i respect the fact that you've fostered personal thought, but i'd like to apologize for making my earlier post sound like an attack on you(all republicans). i'm merely criticizing those who blindly put faith in others because they're too lazy to think about an issue themself.
don't you like how i can apologize like the president won't? ; )
|By Curtisny (Curtisny) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (anti-war)
2. Father is a Southern Republican, mother is a yankee democrat
3. To Be Determined
|By Ucbhopeful (Ucbhopeful) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:36 pm: Edit|
2. Dad: Republican, Mom: Democrat
3. UC Berkeley
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit|
It's really interesting to see that almost every Democrat parent is a mother. Is it just that women are better people than men? :D Joking (sort of...) but it's an interesting trend.
|By Caustic_Juggler (Caustic_Juggler) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:46 pm: Edit|
"Anyone under the age of thirty who is not a liberal has no heart. Anyone over the age of thirty who is not a conservative has no brain."
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit|
"Not all conservatives are idiots, but most idiots are conservatives." Just since we're doing quotes...
|By Plrscott (Plrscott) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit|
I'm posting on my mom's account.
1. I am only 17, so I'm not registered to vote yet. I will turn 18 my first week of college. I am not sure how I will register but I tend to be more conservative than liberal. In my state, even many of the democrats are conservative.
2. My parents are Republicans but will vote democrat in state and local elections.
3. I am going to LSU honors. I was going to Tulane.
|By I10rooteu (I10rooteu) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit|
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 10:17 pm: Edit|
"just last week the conservative party in canada created a pamphlet for conservative candidates "
In 9th grade my english teacher did the same thing, but it was even worse because it was to young people who had no basis to judge the candidates. By the way, it was for democrats. Liberals can be just as closed minded as anyone else, just like you. Just becasue you believe in big government does not mean you are open minded to anything besides big government.
"Not all conservatives are idiots, but most idiots are conservatives."
Very smart moojuice, very smart of you.
|By Reverie (Reverie) on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit|
I really liked your post. Too bad many liberals don't realize this.
Nitroxideracer huh? What do you drive?
|By Michael1104 (Michael1104) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit|
1. Moderate Democrat
2. Mother is Democrat, Father is of the dying breed of liberal Republicans
3. University of Delaware
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit|
Jlq3d3 wrote: "In 9th grade my english teacher did the same thing, but it was even worse because it was to young people who had no basis to judge the candidates. By the way, it was for democrats. Liberals can be just as closed minded as anyone else, just like you. Just becasue you believe in big government does not mean you are open minded to anything besides big government."
first of all, 9th graders don't vote in elections nor are they politicians. i'm not exactly sure why you made reference. secondly, i applaud your generalizations of my narrow mindedness. you don't know me, and you don't know where i truly stand on issues. maybe next time you should ask or at least discuss an issue with me before you go making generalizations. but that's ok, i'll forgive you in advance. finally, big government. where do you think your president stands on this issue? he himself has made government particularly large himself in the past few years. contrary to republican presidents before him.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit|
a) I wasn't clear. Even though 9th graders cannot vote, she was planning for the future if you get my drift. Also, she wanted us to give it to our parents.
b) I do not want to accuse you specificly of being narrow minded, although your generalizing comments about conservatives seemed very narrow minded. What I said was that just because one is a believer in big government does not give him the characteristics of being open minded.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit|
Nitroxideracer, you of course assume that every liberal is a socialist am i correct? once again, petty generalizations. keep in mind that democratic socialism has been one of the most successful forms of government in the past few years. we have western europe as living proof.
|By Indecisive123 (Indecisive123) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit|
1. conservative with some random liberal views
2. an eclectic mix...but they usually vote for Nader to be rebellious.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:36 am: Edit|
Ahh, but Eyesclozedtight, you forget that true, hardcore conservatives can't admit that maybe something that contrasts with their beliefs can work out too. The key is just ignoring all opposing examples, or so I'm told.
|By Chasgoose (Chasgoose) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit|
Ok, I actually agree with you on the specific conservatives you were describing. I think the biggest weight on the Republican party's shoulders is their current obsessive fawning towards the religious right. I understand why they have to do it, but couldn't they just pay them lip service and not actually do what they want. I mean it isn't as though they would vote for a Democrat over a Republican anyways. If the Republican party jettisoned the religious right I would become their most fervent supporter. Sorry about lashing out at you. It is just that I am sick of being characterized as one of the people I described above simply because I adhere more to the Republican/conservative side of things. I am simply conservative in the sense that I don't like the government telling what to do with my life or my money.
|By Indecisive123 (Indecisive123) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit|
I'd like to add that a good number of radical liberals will quickly and blindly devote themselves to a cause, ANY cause, just to be devoted to a cause. While there are many reputable movements worth our attention, I'd say that the "cause-a-week" liberals venture much closer to mindlessness than the oft-attacked conservatives. Just to play devil's advocate.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:49 am: Edit|
shame on your teacher. she's not very into the American spirit.
i suppose we are at a stand over this generalizing comments issue. it's dumb anyways, neither of us are right. politics get pretty blah sometimes.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit|
chasgoose, i totally understand. if you don't like it, just imagine how liberals must feel! haha. anyways, it almost sounds like you'd rather be a liberal if you like the government out of your business, maybe libertarian. haha but whatever floats your boat and all. it's all about personal choice if you ask me. anyways, sorry again about generalizing everyone.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:03 am: Edit|
"chasgoose, i totally understand. if you don't like it, just imagine how liberals must feel! haha. anyways, it almost sounds like you'd rather be a liberal if you like the government out of your business, maybe libertarian. haha but whatever floats your boat and all. it's all about personal choice if you ask me. anyways, sorry again about generalizing everyone."
The words of someone who just got served. YOU're not into the American spirit! Don't back down! :P Just messin' with ya.
Politics seem kind of pointless sometimes. Legitimately, you can't really do much by arguing them. Someone who's so on the other side of the spectrum is never going to see your point of view. So, I suppose the only option is to hunt them down... or buy the government of Florida. Err, yeah.
|By Efilsiertaeht (Efilsiertaeht) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit|
1. LIBERAL. why can't this country focus on human rights, good international relations(America is not self-sufficient. we need good relations with other countries) and just in general try to make our country a happier place, rather than more powerful?
2. democrats. my dad is much more politically minded, however.
|By Reelbigloser (Reelbigloser) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:49 am: Edit|
1. The way I see it, liberals and conservatives both feel they're always right about everything. The odds that either idealogy is always right border on impossible. So let's say 20% of the time liberals are right, 20% of the time conservatives are right, and 60% of the time they're both wrong. I'm independent.
2. My mom is a democrat and my dad a republican.
3. UC Berkeley
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:00 am: Edit|
Hahaha, so you're saying you're right 60% of the time then, eh? That's no better than someone thinking he's always right or wrong. You're basically saying you're right more often than everyone else. You can still be an independent and be liberal. Ralph Nader is. I'm going to register independent.
|By Fakeplastictree (Fakeplastictree) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:14 am: Edit|
1. Extremely liberal.
2. Mom is moderate democrat (fiscal conservative), dad is independent
3. Vassar College
Oh, and one of my favorite quotes on this board: "conservative advocates government control of the bare essentials and nothing more."
Is that why you oppose gay marriage? Right.
|By Bwawn (Bwawn) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 04:17 am: Edit|
PLEASE, will one of you claiming the media to be liberal give examples of why this is so?
To me, the media seems unabashedly conservative. Take, for example, studies through national print archives showing mentions of Clinton's PURPORTED marijuana use before the 1992 elections with Bush's PURPORTED cocaine use before the 2000 elections. God, I wish I could find the page with the exact numbers (I know it's out there somewhere), but mentions of Clinton's possible marijuana use was in the thousands whereas mentions of Bush's possible cocaine use was under one hundred.
Also take the recent example of the MoveOn.org advertisement, as mentioned above, that CBS refused to air, but they still went ahead to air Medicare ads from Bush. Additionally, didn't CBS have a special on Reagan, titled "The Reagans," that portrayed the man in a negative light that was PULLED COMPLETELY before airing due to protests from a few small groups?
How about Clear Channel radio banning any songs that maybe had the tiniest bit of what could be construed as anti-American sentiment in the days following 9/11? Free speech, anyone?
People, the media is run by about seven large corporations, most of which are headed by strict conservatives. Now, it is their job to be as unbiased as possible, but it seems sometimes their bias slips through the cracks. Seems Michael Moore is having some difficulties with Michael Eisner these days. I don't think blocking distribution of a Michael Moore film would be very liberal of our media, would you?
These are just a few small examples. There are lots more. I am not trying to start a flame war -- I am completely open to all political views and ideas -- but it really irks me when people claim we have a "liberal media" and do not back it up with proof. Let's just say it's a pet peeve of mine. I just would honestly like to know how our media is "liberal" when there's so much proof against that. (This is an honest request -- I really do want to know why many consider ours to be a "liberal" media because I do not see it and am genuinely curious.)
As for my political beliefs, I personally hate our two party "representative democracy" system and do not fall in line with Republicans or Democrats. I am left-leaning socially but very conservative economically. Like many posters above, I too liked many of Howard Dean's views very much (although I disagreed with many of his views too), and he seemed very centrist to me. On the Republican side, I'm a John McCain fan -- a very rational man whose beliefs are backed up by sensible logic. But, in the fall, I will be voting Democratic, since I am not a Bush fan. (I have no issues with Republicans -- I just have issues with Bush.)
|By Cardinal (Cardinal) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 06:05 am: Edit|
1. Independent but quite liberal
2. Independent moderates leaning towards the left (voted for Schwarzenegger last October but will vote Kerry in November, hate Bush)
|By Snookumms1 (Snookumms1) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 10:17 am: Edit|
1. Democrat (very far left)
2. Democrat (middle-of-the-road Democrats, both teachers so they tend to vote for whoever the Union likes)
|By Winterfresh (Winterfresh) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit|
3. Catawba College (NC)
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit|
"we have western europe as living proof."
Western Europe has stagnant socialist economies with high unemployment and high prices compared to the US. State run health care there has people on 2 year waiting lists for surgeries that would be given in a moments notice in the US. The average of living there is much lower. And this is even with minimal military forces to spend money on becasue the US does that for them. After world war 2, the europeans could afford to become socialist becasue the US under the marshall plan provides military protection of many countries to this date. England declined severly as a world economic power after it turned socialist, as the state had to support unprofitable industries like coal.
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit|
And we see the effects of socialism on our doorsteps. There is a huge "brain drain" from Canada due to their state run health buerocracy. There is a shortage of medical doctors, researchers, and nurses there. Their salaries are fixed very low, and they have very little incentive to work harder or be innovative. It is no wonder why almost all of the inventions and developments in all fields happen in capitalist countries. Capitalism is the engine behind innovation.
|By Hhboyji (Hhboyji) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit|
1. Democrat (FARRR left)
2. Conservative democrat (believe it or not..)
3. Cornell, Wellesley, or Northwestern U.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit|
just for the record, i don't advocate strict socialism, nor will i advocate strict capitalism. on both ends of the spectrum, people take advantage of the system. but answer me this: why is the euro so much stronger than the dollar? fiscal responsiblity?
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:12 pm: Edit|
lol. the exchange rate of a currency is not the indicater of the stregnth of an economy. Any country's fed reserve can change that by limiting production of currency and by adjusting interest rates. By that logic, mexico, argentina, and ukraine's economy is much stronger than Japan's economy, even though the former 3 countries are some of the weakest in the world right now while Japan is one of the world's economic leaders. Across the board, the US economy is stronger and more robust in terms of real statistics like unemployment rate, gdp, per capita gdp, home ownership, business growth, business markets....
|By Everet (Everet) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit|
Bunmushroom- and what drives capitalism? Profit and greed. That is the reason why we can never privatize social security, welfare, medicare, etc. Because the private sector's goal is to make money not to care for the people. There ultimate goal is profit. However with the governement one of it's goal is to support the people. That is why the governement will do a better job.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit|
maybe this can clear things up.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit|
Jlq3d3, do you seriously wait for me to post or something? ahaha it's all good, but man, you've usually got a response for me within minutes!
|By Everet (Everet) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit|
also one thing that is hypocrtictal of conservatives is that they say they support the troops. But that is a lie. They don't support the troops. They don't want to bring them home to be with there families. To be with kids and their parents. Liberals truly support the troops because we advocate sending in UN troops. Then some soldiers can come home sooner, that is how liberal truly support the troops.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:49 pm: Edit|
well don't forget that bush undercut their sallaries too. maybe he forgot that soldiers have families too. then again, he wouldn't know what it was like to be a soldier...
|By Avs21 (Avs21) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit|
Eyesclozedtight: Actually the salaries have been increasing not decreasing. I have a friend who is an Iraqi Veteran. Don't believe everything the media tells you.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit|
i'm tired of posting here.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 06:29 pm: Edit|
Avs, this may be true for your friend and his buddies in his paygrade but the salaries in general are decreasing. Which is funny, seeing as Bush said he'd increase them.
And how come no conservative's stepped up to the plate and answered Bwawn's question for liberal bias in the media? I wanna hear this one.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit|
You speak of capatilism as greedy theft. True, everyone wants things, and I guess you could call that greedy. But the way you say it deceptivly makes it sound like theft or something illegal. I guess microsoft or apple were greedy and "stole" your money, but you also "stole" their product by your choice.
Everet: I would say the private sector is more caring because of this capitialism you call greed. A state run service has little incentive to serve efficiently and cheaply, while a private company has to answer to shareholders and other investors who will punish them if they do not provide a service which the customers find good and reasonably priced. Look at the steriotypes of the post office and dmv, both gov organizations.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 08:35 pm: Edit|
Sorry to interrupt, Everet, but I have something to say. Sure, jlg3d3 you make a point. But you also fail to see that there's companies like Enron, WorldCom, etc who screwed millions of people out of billions of dollars. The companies may be few and far between, although the number of corrupt, slimy executives is rapidly increasing, but they hurt millions of people and theive billions of dollars.
It's really a matter of perspective. Take a look at the robber baron's/captains of industry (depending on perspective...) of the earliest twentieth century. They made millions for themselves but hurt their workers and delivered shoddy products to the consumer.
We shouldn't have ANY companies like Enron or WorldCom and no slimy cheats like Lay or Stewart in our economy. The problem is that the current administration comes from the same social cut as these jerks. No one wants to hurt his peers, this includes the Cheney (Halliburton...) and Bush (oil industry...) clans. It isn't unnatural to expect them to want to aid their peers, but do you want someone with only his own interests leading your government?
Secondly, Jlg3d3, YOUR government should want to aid you. If you put enough pressure on politicians (ie, threatening them to boot them out of office for more than extramarital oral sex. I'm talking illegit economics and greed) they'll do what you want for you. While corporations serve their investors, a government is supposed to serve the people. That is, unless we don't put pressure on them to do their elected job. But wait, that's unpatriotic.
|By Rh8786 (Rh8786) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit|
1.Conservative Democrat, socially conservative, probably a "right centerist" I'm disolusioned by today Democratic party but I'm Irish Catholic so I had to follow families path.
2. Father-same as me conservative democrat Mother-essentially the same but is an independant
3. HS Senior
|By Everet (Everet) on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit|
Jlq3d3- you're exactly right, corporations main concern is to please their investors in order to make profit. However MY government is here to uphold my rights as an individual. The goal of a government is not to make profit but to serve the needs of the people. There is a fundamental distinction. In the end corporations are here to MAKE MONEY and not aid the people.
Also I was more in line talking what about drives capitalism. And it's a simple thing, profit. If it wasn't driven by profit then microsoft would make just enough money to go on running and to pay it's employees, but it makes so much EXCESS amount of money. That is what I'm talking about when I say capitalism is driven by profit. I mean I want to make profit too, get the best value for something. However capitalism comes with a cost. I'm not talking about theft, I'm not marxist, but what I'm talking about capitalism degrades the dignity of human beings. It's robs them the spirit of the human race. I mean the "cheap" shoes we get from china are basically from sweat shops that have horrible work conditions, health codes are basically nonexistant, and human rights are not in place. They also get low wages. Capitalism gets you cheaper goods, but also something in the end is lost which is the dignity of the people of the world.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit|
But see, the joy of being a true conservative is not caring about the people you don't have to look at on a day to day basis. You can't care about the poor people slaving away in Taiwan or China or Indonesia because that brings morals into business. True capitalism is built solely on meeting that "margin of profit" no matter what the consequences are.
As a result, you get crazy executives who say they didn't make profit while what they really didn't meet was their outrageous projections. You also get crappy (yet inexpensive) Walmart-esque products that fall apart after a month of use. But that's good for capitalism. It just keeps the cycle going. If the shirt you bought at Walmart falls apart you have to buy a new one sooner. Which only increases the profit for corporations.
One could argue that we're offering the poor of far off, exotic countries work; that they wouldn't get ANY money if it weren't for us. This is true, completely true. You can live off twenty US cents per day in Malaysia. Your quality of life is so awful though that it doens't compare at all to the executives who ordered the building of the factory you slave away in though. The fact is, it wouldn't kill our corporations to improve the world around them. But this is fundamentally where liberalism and conservatism splits. Liberals feel the need to help people in a worse off situation than their own and well, conservatives don't. Also, capitalism requires that one does whatever one can to make the most money possible. Guess that's just the system.
|By Irock1ce (Irock1ce) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit|
1. Socialist w/ Communist/Marxist/Leninist ideals
2. Um.. i guess you can say same thing as me.. dunno if they care that much.
3. Hoping to attend either UPenn (Wharton), Columbia, Yale, or Stanford.
|By Pipettewolf (Pipettewolf) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 01:56 am: Edit|
2. "What's a political party?"
3. Not going to tell you or they will hunt me down.
|By Pipettewolf (Pipettewolf) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 01:57 am: Edit|
I thought I was gonna be clever with the communist joke.
You beat me to it.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 01:58 am: Edit|
"Liberals feel the need to help people in a worse off situation than their own and well, conservatives don't."
Completly incorrect. You have really shallow analysis and are trying to spread it to others. The difference is that liberals believe a buerocracy is the way to help others through state run services, while conservatives believe non-profit orgs and a strong economy are more efficient, effective, and fair way to help the poor. How dare you make such blatent lies, accusations, and generalizations about 43% (% of self identified conservatives) of the US population, a population that is the most charitable in the world.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit|
irokice, how are you communist and one who aspires to attend wharton, a business school?
|By Alpinesun (Alpinesun) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 02:02 am: Edit|
its obvious, we're talking outta our rears
|By Everet (Everet) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit|
jlg- "while conservatives believe non-profit orgs and a strong economy are more efficient, effective, and fair way to help the poor."
Hmm you are wrong. Conservatives want to use religion to help others with strings attached. For example if they really help through non profit orgs then why don't they set of SECULAR organization instead of faith based organization that is tied to some religion? If they really want to help people...With Liberals it's all secular where everyone is icluded. No religious ties to make someone uncomfortable, no strings attached.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit|
You, jlg, can say what you like, but the fact is that a majority of large indigenous-people-screwing corporations are run by conservatives. You imply that conseratives are more generous than liberals while it's the liberals who go to the developing countries and help the people renovate them the way the people want them. Sending American companies like Halliburton, McDonald's, and Nike is not going to help renovate developing countries because the companies are not run by the people they claim to help. I'm not saying that conservatives aren't domestically generous, they may or may not be, but when 'Bush comes to shove', the fact is that Halliburton is just in Iraq for the money -- not to help our troops, nor to aid the Iraqi people. You also get our government being generous with our religion, performing another crusade to "free the Iraqi people" from their own customs and style of government. If they don't want our brand of democracy, then it's not democracy if we force them to take it. Same goes for religion. What happened to our country supposedly being built on religious freedoms? Why can't we allow Islam to thrive in its homeland?
I should rephrase that statement I made though. "Socialists feel the need to help people in a worse off situation than their own and well, capitalists don't." You may feel this is a skewed definition of capitalism, but I think when it boils down to what's really happening in modern day capitalism, that's pretty much what occurs.
|By Argilospsychi (Argilospsychi) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 04:13 am: Edit|
1. Liberal with socialist tendancies
Avs: yes, fellow tulane student unless i get off waitlists at Brown or WUSTL. Anyone have info on the politics at Tulane?
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit|
"Socialists feel the need to help people in a worse off situation than their own and well, capitalists don't."
LOL. The most generous country in terms of charities is the capitalist US. The most leftist countries in history: USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, Arab Monarchies, Cuba, china. I wouldnt say they are to humanitarian or generous, even to there own people
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:18 am: Edit|
I didn't say extreme communist. I didn't say communist at all. Socialist governments (or governments with socialist aspects) are generous to their own people. Look at the Netherlands; the Dutch have socialized medicine that they're happy with. European socialist governments turn out happier countries. They may not be as generous to other countries but they focus on their own problems first.
Extreme communism is the same as facism in my book. Stalin was as much of a dictator as Mousilini was. I don't think extreme left or right works in politics.
|By Vigilante (Vigilante) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit|
WOW THIS WAS NOT WHAT I ENVISIONED WHEN I STARTED THIS THREAD
but i guess I'm not surprised, any time politics are involved... well the past 150 posts say it all
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit|
Yeah, well, this thread would be empty without all the political arguing and bitching, eh? :P
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:05 am: Edit|
Also, the US is biggest contributor to UN humanitarian aid. Much more than any socialist country. Again, you cited no facts to back up your specious claim that "socialists are more generous".
Again, you do not present any evidence for your next claim: That the european socialist countries are "happier". The countries with the highest suicide rates in the world are in Europe.
|By Everet (Everet) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:16 am: Edit|
I thought the highest suicide rates especially for students were in Asia?
Jlq3d3- also the United States hasn't payed it's due to the United Nations. If you didn't know.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 03:08 am: Edit|
I dont know about students, but I was speaking about the whole population.
First off many countries havnt paid there dues, but dues arnt relavent to humanitarian aid. The fact is the UN wouldnt be able to do anything without the generousity of the US. The US is the largest contributer, even for its size and wealth. There is no dispute to that.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 09:51 am: Edit|
If you're talking about going into Iraq against the UN's will then yes, we're the most generous. We've given the most lives there. Some of your conservative cohorts think we should leave the UN because they're not backing us. Why even contribute if you're not going to listen to the organization?
Actually, the highest suicide rates are from old Soviet Union countries which again plays to my idea that extreme communism is facism. They're not in Western Europe like I was talking about. They're either in Eastern Europe or Asia while the Netherlands is in Western Europe.
|By Lockin54 (Lockin54) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit|
very very very liberal
mom is a moderate democrat, dad is very right wing (doesn't even vote republican and calls gore a communist)
I support gay civil unions only because i believe that the government should not support any marriage because it is a religious institution, so i'm against herto marriage too, i'm pro-choice, think the drug war is stupid, believe having a social saftey net is better for the economy, think the war on terror is a fake war used by the republicans to scare up votes, think we should abolish the FCC, i believe church and state are polar opposites and should never come in contact
that about sums it up
|By Musketeerlady (Musketeerlady) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit|
1. Liberal socialist (only conservative in thinking I'm liberal)
2. Socially conservative, political - don't care.
3. Reed or Bates (I guess aka extremely liberal or moderately neutral)
|By Mexbruin (Mexbruin) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit|
1.Definately a conservative Democrat (If that makes sense.But have always voted Dem)
3.Currently at Pasadena City College transferring to Occidental College next fall
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit|
"If you're talking about going into Iraq against the UN's will then yes, we're the most generous"
No, I am not just speaking about the US's enforcement of UN resolution 1441. I am speaking about humanitarian missions. You cannot argue that. It is a pure fact.
Also, those past soviet countries are still socialist. And socialist western european countries all have suicide rates higher than the US. The point is, you made a totally baseless statement in saying western european socialist countries are happier.
|By Taru (Taru) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 04:52 pm: Edit|
I don't think you can necessarily correlate suicide rates w/relative "happiness" (I'd like to see ppl's sources for suicide rates, btw). A lot of miserable people don't kill themselves.
|By Lockin54 (Lockin54) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit|
humanitarian mission? this war was sold to the public as not being humanitarian rather a threat to the US. If it was humanitarian and the bush admistration is for heart felt then why are we allied with the Suads, they still have honor killings. Why don't we intervene in any of the numerous African countries that were much worse off then Iraq. Why don't we invade Iran. Why not China????
Occupation is not a humanitarian mission, it is control of a nation by the use of force. It has never been successful in history and will not be succesful in Iraq.
|By Mac87 (Mac87) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit|
1. Moderate Republican
2. Dad voted for Bush and probably will again/Mom never talks about politics
3. Most likely Purdue or USI
i'm against abortion and gay marriage and i support the war in iraq and the war on terrorism, the war on terrorism because we should always retaliate anytime the US is attacked and the war in iraq because we should finish what we started and it's too easy to look back now and say we shouldn't have gone to war
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 06:30 pm: Edit|
I never said that it is a pure corralation. I said that the statement that "the socialist countries are happier" is totally baseless, and it is a pretty stupid comment.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit|
"sold to the public as not being humanitarian rather a threat to the US"
It was sold as both
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 07:07 pm: Edit|
why are you trying to save face now? everyone knows it wasn't. PLEASE give me a break.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 07:11 pm: Edit|
It most certainly was not sold as both. Our chronic liar of a President claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When his brilliant plan didn't work -- because of the fact that the UN is composed of intellegent leaders that don't swallow the bull we force them to eat -- Bush said Al-Quaeda cells were in Iraq. MORE complete bull. By the way, the slaughtering of Nick Berg does not prove that there are Al Quaeda cells in Iraq, despite what Limbaugh and his ditto heads claim. There has been no proven connection between Iraq and terrorists.
Finally, after Bush's two techniques to sucker Americans into going to war failed, he claimed we were going there to "free the Iraqi people" by shoving our form of government down their throats and trying to convert them to our religion. It's another crusade.
So, we're stuck in Iraq and it is turning into another Vietnam. The Shrub Administration tried to sell us their garbage and then tried to appeal to our hearts so they could get in there and stake out that oil claim. Not to mention giving Halliburton first dibs.
You're saying that capitalist countries are happier yet not giving any proof. Suicide rates are not perfect examples of how happy a country is. Please at least try not to be a hypocrite and give us proof if you're asking for it from others. You can do better than Republican talk radio.
By the way, Taru, my source is an article off LexisNexis.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit|
I NEVER said capitalist countries are happier. That is an out right lie. You are twisting it. You said socialist countries are happier, and I called that an unsubstantiated lie.
And I remember Bush and those supporting the war talking about the inhumane regime, and the genocide he inflicted on his own people. perhaps you are forgetting.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit|
So your unsubstantiated comment that capitalist countries are as happy as socialist countries is alright while mine isn't? Suicide rates are not enough data to prove the happiness of a country.
Bush didn't talk about inhumane regime. He talked about terrorism. Terrorism which does not nor did it ever exist in Iraq. Just as we were starting to invade then Bush turned to "freeing the people" of Iraq. BUSH DOESN'T CARE about Iraqis nor does the "average American" according to conservative Michael Savage. Unless you want to confess that your media is lying and hypocritical, you'll have to live with that fact. Tough choice, eh?
|By _Twinkletoes (_Twinkletoes) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 08:02 pm: Edit|
2. One far left democrat and one centrist
3. Berkeley or UCLA
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 08:11 pm: Edit|
"So your unsubstantiated comment that capitalist countries are as happy as socialist countries is alright while mine isn't?"
READ WHAT I SAID. I NEVER Fuc*ing said that. You are lying.
Also, I remember Bush talking about inhumane regime that commits atrocities and genocide. You are making lies just like what you accuse Bush of doing.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit|
Oh geez, calm down now. You shouldn't be flaming people just because you disagree with their political beliefs. I didn't accuse you of lying, calm down and I don't appreciate being sworn at.
We're obviously not going to agree on our opinions of whether or not Bush lied before we went into Iraq. I'm just going to take the liberal stance that he did, and you're just going to take the conservative stance that he didn't.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 08:37 pm: Edit|
No, I was not angry at you for your opinions. I was angry at you for lying and misquoting me. I never said that capitalist countries are happier. I just said that your original assertion that socialist countries are happier is baseless.
sorry for the language by the way.
|By Dontgouc (Dontgouc) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 09:22 pm: Edit|
1. Independent (Still trying to find my party) I would consider myself a libertarian due to the fact that I am conservative economically and liberal socially.
2. My mom is a registered Republican and my Dad is a registered Democrat
3. I will be attending the University of Washington in the fall
|By Indoex (Indoex) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:58 pm: Edit|
How can u make a decision and join a camp when u haven't hear the topic?
Anyone who makes their mind if they are liberal or conservative about an issue before hearing it is irrational I think.
Maybe I'm conservative about crime, but I'm liberal about medicine marijuana.
Maybe I'm wrong.
|By Outlaw (Outlaw) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 04:45 am: Edit|
1. libertarian (i am actually v. leftist but hate the government)
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
Indoex. I agree with you completly. I cannot stand when people do not learn about a topic but take a stand on it. This is embodied by those protests and a mob mentality. I bet you that at many political protests, if I went up and asked some of the protesters a few questions about their topic, they wouldn't know anything outside of some slogon that is on a poster their holding like "no blood for oil". For many who are not educated on a subject or on basic economics, liberal ideas are easier to first accept. I mean, who would not want stuff such as "free" health care and a $15 min wage.
|By Lockin54 (Lockin54) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit|
you are saying only uneducated people are liberals? How come people with more education tiend to be liberal? Why does the right say liberals are elitist intellecuals? I am educated on economics and liberalism does nto equal economic ruin. Take the livable wage, witgh more people having more money then they can spend it, this will drive up our economy and creat more need for workers. It is the same logic as the bush tax cuts but its giving money to the poor who need it rather then the billionaire who don't. Health care?? Productivity goes down when workers have to worry about their health this is the reason that most companies have health care opinions, if no american had to worry about health care, they c an spend the money that they would otherwise save for an unforseeable health cost, on products which again will drive up the economy.
The Iraq war was sold as a terror threat. Bush has come out numours times against using the american military are a police force. Why did he change his tune? Because there were no weapons of mass descrution. Now all of his flip flopping on justification for war leads me personally to think that he had other reaosns for going to war, that is why he is despertly trying to find some way to justify it. It seems ironic to me that he was an oil man and that the company benifitting most but this invasion is a company that still pays our vice president a salary. This war has used the blood of young men and women of the USA to further business interests in Iraq.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit|
no, i never said that. again a total misquote and lie. I said it is easier for uneducated ppl to accept liberal ideas. I never said it is easier for educated people to accept conservative ideas.
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit|
It's NOT A MISQUOTE AND LIE. You seem to get misquoted a lot around here. Why don't you stop implying your ideas and then when someone calls you on it claiming he/she is a liar?! You're implying so much and then denying it, stating that because you didn't say it outright people are LYING and MISQUOTING you.
And your point that it's easy for uneducated people to accept liberal ideas is "unbased" like all the "lies" I've been coming up with.
|By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit|
"I said it is easier for uneducated ppl to accept liberal ideas. I never said it is easier for educated people to accept conservative ideas."
would you also say it is easier for uneducated people to accept christianity?
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit|
It is a total misquote. I said that someone who doesnt know a lot about a subject would be more inclined to accept something that sounds better on the surface, and like the examples I quoted, those are usually liberal ideas. Then I was accused of something totally different: I was accused of saying that only uneducated people are liberals. And it is baseless and just from my personal observations.
Eyesclozedtight: I dont know where your going with that, and I do not know the answer to your question.
|By Mac87 (Mac87) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit|
i would hardly consider President Bush to be a cronic liar, he probably believed that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and that there were terrorists cells in Iraq, it's easy to call Bush a liar after our army has searched their country for weapons of mass destruction and terrorist cells
and if Bush was trying to sucker the American people into to war he obviously didn't fail because we did go to war
i also find your comparison to Vietnam funny, Vietnam lasted 11 years compared to the conflict in Iraq which is a little over a year old, and in Vietnam we were fighting the spread of communism, whereas in Iraq we were removing Saddam Hussian from power, and there was about 10 billion times more opposition to us being in Vietnam than there is to us being in Iraq
as far as shoving our government down their throat, what kind of government would you expect us to erect, a communist government? or should we just find another ruthless dictator to put in charge?
|By Moojuice (Moojuice) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit|
Bush had trouble telling the truth about how he got elected, Bush had trouble telling the truth about our motives for Iraq. He changed his mind about why we were going to Iraq several times. The definition of chronic is "of long duration". The simple fact that Bush had issues with the truth four years ago and he still does today make his lying chronic. Obviously, Jdg3d3 is going to accuse me of lying and being baseless here -- as usual, I think that Bush and his cronies wanted to go into Iraq for their own reasons - oil and money. Anyone else think it's weird that Halliburton gets major money from going to Iraq and that Iraq has the largest concentration of oil in the world?
What are you saying when you say "and if Bush was trying to sucker the American people into to war he obviously didn't fail because we did go to war"? That just proves my point. He didn't fail. We're at war. Just like he wanted us to be.
There are so many parrallels to Vietnam. During Vietnam the American people were told they were winning and had won the war while they most certainly hadn't. Recently, Bush declared that we had won the war. Then several hundred more Americans died. We were supposed to be completely out of Iraq much earlier than we are now. We'll see July 1 if we're out of Iraq. If we are, you can tell me off on this point. I really don't think we'll stop losing American lives after June 30, 2004. It's sick that our troops have to die for Bush's oil war.
Opposition for the war in Iraq is increasing daily. There's even prominent Republicans that don't like war -- take Michael "Savage" Weiner for example. He doesn't agree that we should stillbe losing people in Iraq. Also, the opposition to the war isn't just in the US. Spain, France, and various countries in South America are opposed to the war. Even the people of England don't like it. One can't say there was more opposition against Vietnam. That's crazy. There's INTERNATIONAL opposition to this oil war.
No, we shouldn't erect a communist government in Iraq. We should let THEM choose. Yes, the Iraqi people would probably choose a dictator but that's what they're used to. My point was that it's NOT democracy unless they want it. You can't force democracy down someone's throat! That completely defeats its purpose!
|By Insanity (Insanity) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit|
College: I'm only a junior but I'm planning on going to Grove City College
|By Mac87 (Mac87) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit|
i was just pointing out how your statement that:
"after Bush's two techniques to sucker Americans into going to war failed"
was incorrect because we did go to war
and i cannot believe that you think the Iraqi people would choose a dictatorship after living under Hussain, they aren't stupid
as for what the rest of the world thinks, they couldn't understand what was so bad about Watergate or Clinton and his affair, and you would think the French would learn that appeasement doesn't work after trying it on Hitler, not that they would be any help, when was the last time France had any military success and even then Napolean was eventually defeated, and why should we expect Spains help, they turned and ran when they got attacked
as for Vietnam, they never defeated us on the battle field; however, since they wouldn't give up it was inevitable that the American people would tire of the war and we would pull out; we've already defeated Hussain
and i was also wondering when we were supposed to be out of Iraq
|By T2opine (T2opine) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit|
Me: Moderate Republican
Parents: Mom-Conservative Democrat
College: Duquesne University
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|