<p>Liberals have brought far more bad than good to this country. And there’s this atmosphere on this thread that liberals have bad economic policies but good social policies. Let us not try to negotiate here. They’re economic AND social policies are just plain screwey. And back to the original topic of the thread, college kids tend to be liberal cause of many reasons, including the ones aforementioned, but mainly b/c o fth ecollege itself. The brainwashing. the amosphere. the proffesors. the trend.</p>
<p>@roaming</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense, conservative Republicans “know what’s best for everybody” better than anybody else does! Liberals are idealistic and don’t know what they’re doing, they don’t live in the real world. They’re intellectuals and ellitist and ought be shunned cause they don’t know how it is in reality where the Real Americans go out and break their backs for a dollar cause they’re too busy trying to be politically correct. It’s okay for the Republicans to be hypocrites because they know what’s best for EVERYBODY. They’re like the tough but firm Father who informs us of what we’re doing wrong even if it’s technically not wrong at all. They know what’s best for everybody so they’re always right, no matter what! We need to accept their hypocrisy because they know best and we do not, if we disagree, obviously we’re bad bad naughty children who deserve punishment, for who could disagree with their Fathers about anything? Besides, that’s not government intervention you’re talking about, that’s the government upholding the status quo which is ALL. Republicans are perfectly fine with government intervention as long as it upholds status quo… unless the status quo contradicts the father-figure, then the status quo has got to go!</p>
<p>/Poe</p>
<p>…That actually… made me a bit sick to my stomach to write, even if it was done in the style of Colbert…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not like the conservative ones. I agree with that.</p>
<p>But I do not UNDERSTAND why Republicans tout small government but then do everything possible to make government huge- in addition to what I said before, they also increase military size exponentially, they wage war costing trillions, the list goes on. I have yet to meet someone who can justify it. But I am more than willing to listen to arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? How so? Do you not agree that all people should have equal rights and opportunities? Do you think that the government should have the be all and end all power as to what we can and cannot do? Please explain at least how the social policies are screwy. I already concede that I am not a huge fan of liberal economics.</p>
<p>ETA: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I give you that. What would be a more accurate description is what I wrote above- their rhetoric dictates that they want small government. Of course, rhetoric and reality are complete opposites.</p>
<p>@delmonico </p>
<p>Okay, I’ll bite, what bad social policies have the liberals come up with? Please, enlighten us with the facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whoa there. Equal rights, yes. Equal opportunities falls under the liberal economics category. You don’t want that.</p>
<p>“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither.” - Milton Friedman</p>
<h2>Liberals want (personal life: stay out!) and (help the poor). ~ Peter_Parker</h2>
<p>They want to help the poor, just with other peoples money.</p>
<p>[Who</a> Gives and Who Doesn’t? - ABC News](<a href=“Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News”>Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News)</p>
<p>"Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares,” says that “when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.” He adds, “And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.” </p>
<p>And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government."</p>
<p>Oh, and those evil religious people you like to insult - they give more too.</p>
<p>"Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation. </p>
<p>Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization: </p>
<p>“Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.” </p>
<p>And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual."</p>
<p>^ I meant in that it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, male, female- you shouldn’t be limited by physical characteristics. That is what I meant by equal opportunities. Make sense?</p>
<p>It is amusing to see you spar like drunken monkeys over silly things used to keep the masses divided against each-other. To the victor goes a banana!</p>
<p>Both parties seek to expand the power of government, regardless of what they say. Both parties benefit from the spoils system that divvies tax dollars taken with threat of force. However, they differentiate themselves with rhetoric to keep the people divided and conquered. One holds up the left leg, and the other the right leg and shakes the people down like the petty thieves, which would not happen if the people were not such moronic slobs persuaded by propaganda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that everyone should have fair rights and opportunities. That does not mean, especially in the legal context, that they are the same for all people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why, exactly? I mean, in a sense I agree, but why should I let other people do things with which I disagree, if I believe that no action has no outside consequences? A mental exercise, not a point I am trying to push.</p>
<h2>^ I meant in that it doesn’t matter if you’re black, white, male, female- you shouldn’t be limited by physical characteristics. That is what I meant by equal opportunities. Make sense? ~ Romanigypsyeyes</h2>
<p>I think we’d all agree with that, but there is a major difference between what you are saying and enacting quotas and preferential treatment - which is just the definition of discrimination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>This is for you, peter_parker.</p>
<p>There are four ways to spend money:</p>
<ol>
<li>You spend your own money on yourself.</li>
<li>You spend your own money on someone else.</li>
<li>You spend someone else’s money on yourself.</li>
<li>You spend someone else’s money on someone else.</li>
</ol>
<p>When are you going to be most careful and efficient with your spending?</p>
<p>Charity (#2) always trumps welfare (#4)</p>
<p>And BIGeastBEAST’s data above clearly shows that people are willing to engage in charity.</p>
<p>There goes the welfare argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. But you could have stopped at rights.</p>
<p>"But I do not UNDERSTAND why Republicans tout small government but then do everything possible to make government huge- in addition to what I said before, they also increase military size exponentially, they wage war costing trillions, the list goes on. " -you’ve mentioned one thing alone in ur “list” of things republicans champion for that increase government: War (the military). Yes, that is the one constant youll find. B/c we have a big focus on national security and freedom. Trillions of dollars can be justfied to save lives, they can’t be justified, though, for useless “stimulus” packages which don’t create anything but superficial public sector jobs. But i’m getting off-topic. </p>
<p>@ the guy who wanted me to name some bad socail policies: liberals’ stance on the middle-east conflict. they’re view on racism (whiihc includes everything from affirmative action to racial profiling). the entire “spread the wealth” concpet. Which is why i dont belive one can be a liberal who doesnt agree woth the economic policies of liberals. They’re grained into the liberal belife. IT’s not the eceonomics itself, it’s the social aspect. </p>
<p>p.s. i dont need any of that “you must be a conservative b/c you cant spell. haha.” crap that i get all too often from antsy liberals online.</p>
<p>^Delmmonico - The stance on the Middle-East conflict? Which one, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan? There’s a difference between all three of them. Don’t blanket it under just “Middle-East Conflict” because you’re talking about multiple issues, and I’d like to address each of them individually. </p>
<p>Views on racism? Again, you’re going to have to be WAYYYY more specific. Because the liberals I know think racism is bad and that this view is a GOOD thing to have, certainly not “screwy.” </p>
<p>As for the “spread the wealth” concept, are you just referring to Obama’s supposed plan to redistribute wealth? Or are you coming down on things like Social Security, Medical/Medicaid/Medicare/etc as well? Again, you need to specify which parts you take umbridge with so that I can address them. </p>
<p>Also, I note that you didn’t mention the other social issues such as Gay Rights or Abortion, am I to assume you agree with liberals on these social issues or did you just not think to include them?</p>
<p>^ Taking the stance that both parties are crooks is not a difficult one, but even if you hate both parties, you still have an ideological stance on most major issues, what the government can and cannot do, and have values. So you still might liberal or conservative, even if you despise both parties.</p>
<p>BigEastBeast, you make me laugh.</p>
<p>Don’t quote me laughing stock ABCnews — show me a published article from Google Scholar from a peer-reviewed journal — not some laughing stock media outlet that has half its articles saying liberals eat babies and the other half saying conservatives are axe-murderers. All of those articles are completely unscientific and a complete joke.</p>
<p>By the way, Bill Gates: Atheist</p>
<p>His donations alone should dwarf a hell of a lot the Christian community.</p>
<p>But the topic is mute: your donations are tax write-offs anyway, so what the hell are the you complaining about! The only people affected are the so-unlike-Jesus hypocritical Jesus freaks.</p>
<p>Here’s how the Republican party (and by default, conservatism, because people are idiots) works:</p>
<ol>
<li>Rich, powerful corporation gets an idea to exploit the masses</li>
</ol>
<p>example: Internet service providers realize bandwidth is limited. They decide instead of allocating it evenly to all users and websites, they can skew it to make a profit.</p>
<p>In other words, “premium” sites can pay them a lot to be faster, and “premium” high-paying users can suck all the internet juice for themselves.</p>
<p>E.g. I’m talking about the net neutrality issue. What does this mean? Not only will average yokels like you have slower internet, but small sites such as this, college confidential, will run at a snail’s pace compared to the media giants.</p>
<p>YOU GET REAMED, COMPANY PROFITS.</p>
<ol>
<li>The bought-and-paid for Republicans are on board, and then weave a web of lies to their simian-brained drooling followers.</li>
</ol>
<p>“Net neutrality means fairness and freedom of the internet (false). The government wants to control you internet now! (read: prevent these companies from screwing you) Join the fight against Obama and his cronies!”</p>
<ol>
<li>Tea-bagging Republicans: “Yes master!! We agree with you on this issue we know absolutely nothing about, and reiterate that we think Obama is a Muslim from Kenya!! We will bend over to suit our corporate overlords!”</li>
</ol>
<h2>And that, ladies and gents, is how a bill becomes a law.</h2>
<p>I never answered the OPs original question.</p>
<p>Here’s my answer.</p>
<p>I disagree that college students are overwhelmingly liberal.</p>
<p>They are only as liberal leaning as the general population (60% of the general population leans liberal, though liberals have a much lower voter turnout that conservatives).</p>
<p>However, they ARE overwhelmingly liberal at the elite (top-20) universities.</p>
<p>You can already see where I’m going with this, but it is because IQ is a predictor of party identification.</p>
<p>You have liberals on the low end of the spectrum, then as you get to high school grad and some college you have more conservatives, and then as you break into college grad and the upper echelons of IQ, the higher your IQ is the more likely you are to be liberal.</p>
<p>You draw your own conclusions.</p>
<p>Peter_parker, I have seen such studies; could you include links for the record?</p>
<p>On the other hand, I’m not convinced that IQ has anything to do with political leanings; it could be a correlation-versus-causation situation. Anyway, that’s hardly relevant.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should consider a career in radio with your incorrect and angry vitriol; you remind me of Michael Savage (and make me laugh just as much).</p>
<p>Also, that article said the average family donates $1,800.</p>
<p>Also, it emphasizes Christians, not conservatives. The vast majority of this country, and both parties, is Christian.</p>
<p>$1,800 — which probably includes supporting your local Church and giving to a breast cancer foundation ---- is a hell of a lot different then 25% of you annual income, used to support poor people, often given to minority groups that little to no wealthy Republican white man is going to even glance at.</p>
<p>Baelor I’m not going to get into it with you because you’ve proved time and time again on this site to be irrational, unreasonable, naive, and utterly deluded.</p>
<p>I’m convinced you are the greatest ■■■■■ ever conceived - but no, it’s too good.</p>
<p>You will amount to nothing so I’m not worried about your effect on the world. Your unreasoned and unsupported preposterous arguments will not be adopted by anyone with a smattering of brain cells, so labor on yakking and typing nonsense, oh noisy trumpet.</p>
<p>I wish I could put on devil horns, get drunk, show up to your house smoking a blunt with two hookers in my arms, yelling how God is dead while prancing around stark naked around your backyard. God knows your sheltered and deluded existence would make your reaction priceless.</p>
<p>You are either in for a rude awakening later in life (the best outcome), or destined to a life of your current misery, as nothing in this universe will ever make sense when you literally take the Bible and the Pope’s word to a T while invading other people’s business and telling them who to sleep with, when, how, and what they are allowed to drink. For the latter, you will never have your long-overdue rude awakening but die utterly asleep in a confusing dream-world, and then enter the void of utter and infinite darkness, having never truly lived ever, and never to live for all time.</p>
<p>^ Pretty arrogant…and you wonder why people think liberals have no morals or values.</p>
<p>^^That was excessive and unnecessary.</p>
<p>EDIT:</p>
<p>Also, if this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ever happened to me, I would call the men in white coats to come pick you up, and I have no religious leanings whatsoever.</p>
<p>Oh and BMW strikes again. Glad to have an easy target to rip on once more.
See you must be puffing the magic dragon like your other gop friends since you seem to have forgotten the difference between a robbery and federal/state taxes. See, a robbery is where one or two people break into your house and take things. It even happens on a larger scale sometimes like maybe 10 people take money from a bank. In robberies, that money isn’t distributed at all and the few people that take it use it all for themselves. Taxes, on the other hand, is where every person in the country gives a proportion of their income (except somehow really rich people give a lesser percentage hmmm…[read: unfair] and even sometimes break the law and skip out on them all together) and it goes into a big fund used to pay for things like parks, schools, and meaningless wars. See, now you’re getting it!</p>
<p>And btw you can’t say that you’re not discussing the merits of being liberal and then completely bash liberals.</p>