<p>I consider myself to live a conservative lifestyle, but vote liberal. I attend a big XII school (shown to the left), and I myself am sick of how liberal college is here. The girls here get around, (not as much as UCSD), the "English" teachers will curse in class because the students find it entertaining for some reason, and people here never study yet still make good grades. Yeah, I'm sick of it too, I guess we'll just have to deal with it though.</p>
<p>You know why college students are mostly liberal?</p>
<p>It's because, yes, being liberal is a much more intelligent position than conservative. I'll list a few basic reasons, although volumes upon volumes could be filled with reasons why.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Republicans force Jesus on people. Hey, I'm Catholic myself, but even I get p-issed when I hear someone trying to mix government and religion. What happened to the first ammendment, buddy? This view also leads to close-mindedness and senseless hate crimes committed by, yup, fundamentalists.</p></li>
<li><p>"Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps!!" Yeah, inner city kids from the ghetto, poor farm boys, any children who were born into poor socioeconomic classes didn't ask to be, and their class sure as HELL doesn't reflect their abilities or motivation. Tragedies befall adults as well. Meanwhile, beavis and butthead who live on daddy's multimillion dollar estate sure as hell didn't use their empty heads to accomplish anything. It's almost social darwinism, and it's pretty pathetic and air-headed.</p></li>
<li><p>Small government? Republicans are dictating what gays and women can do with themselves in their own homes. I'm not a gay rights supporter; in fact gays may weird me out sometimes. But I don't give a d-amn nor think I have the right to tell them what to do! Christ, THERE ARE STRANGER THINGS OUT THERE.</p></li>
<li><p>Conservatives: Liberals are a bunch of communist retards! We believe in capitalism 'round these parts!
Uh..... paying taxes makes us communist? I'm afraid not. In fact, Bush has already spent more than Clinton. Okay, I won't get into it with Bush. He's too easy a target, and I think many 'ideal' conservatives dislike the guy anyhow.</p></li>
<li><p>Uh... despite what the guy down your hall looks like, liberals are not at all even close to being tree-huggin, weed smokin hippies. That seems more in line with the Green party. Most democrats are from major cities (COULD CARE LESS ABOUT MOTHER EARTH!), including myself. This characterization is hardly relevant to anything.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>***The fact that college kids become adults and then some become Republicans is obvious. They make lots of money to move into the top tax bracket, and then they forfeit their values in order to protect their money. See: sell-out.</p>
<p>I know this won't change your mind, because your parents where conservative, and therefore you are conservative. Many liberals have conservative parents, but no conservatives have liberal parents. Quite a revealing fact, isn't it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but no conservatives have liberal parents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Karl Rove?</p>
<p>I'm for meritocracy. I think sociology has been one of the great inventions of knee-jerk liberalism and has grown in power on college campuses because it is so emotionally persuasive. Heck, wouldn't it be easier if everyone was born genetic equals, and all difference in ability was due to environment? Yeah, back to reality. </p>
<p>At the same time, the young republicans are just as goofy to me. Many of them were born rich, accepted their parents idelogies because it was an easier way to defend the unfair advantage they were given in life as some sort of pre-determined, God-given superiority. </p>
<p>In an ideal society, everyone would start from the same place and the free market would seperate the weak from the strong. Both the Michael Moore's and the Bill O'Reily's of the world love to beat the populist drum, despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Both cater to a crowd that is resentful of those more successful; whether its hard working immigrants or successful coroporate types, it doesn't really matter much.</p>
<p>What do I think we should do to achieve this model society? Abolish welfare, social security, etc. At the same time, make the inheritance tax 100%. Use this money to fund universities, making college education as well as techinical training free. Essentialy, give the gifted and ambitious, regardless of backround the oppurtunity to succeed, and let the stupid and lazy fail. The producitvity increase would be so great, we wouldn't even need welfare as per capita GDP would be so high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm for meritocracy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you better vote for Democrats, because the GOP has an awful track record on government appointments.</p>
<p>wutangfinancial, you've never taken a race related class have you? You'd learn that genetics actually has nothing to do with inequality. For example, a black person is as genetically different from another black person as another white person, which leaves environment as the cause of inequality.</p>
<p>Unless you weren't talking about race, which is possible I suppose.</p>
<p>uh, I am in fact stuck voting democrat, simply cuz republicans are pro-life fundamentalist chrisitan racists, not to mention huge govt.-that's a seperate issue. Also I wasn't talking about race, not even implicitly. I don't recognize race difference, but I do recognize class difference, i.e. I don't have an overly romantic view of the permanently working class.</p>
<p>Jay Z is a much better role model for me, and all underprivilleged youth, than Michael Moore. Jay Z did something about his situation and made a fortune as a rugged individualist, Michael Moore panders to people's unwillingness to accept personal responsibility.</p>
<p>Oh, BTW all my family is composed of union Democrats. I get into arguments all the time. They resent the fact that I actually want financial independence, not to become some factory working, marginalized alcoholic.</p>
<p>republicans:
have the balls to tell people you're an unashamed libertarian who could care less that other people have it hard</p>
<p>or
have the balls to admit that you're a bigot, you know it, and you like it that way</p>
<p>same for liberals:
admit that you're naive
and admit that you're willing to put your country in danger to protect abstractions</p>
<p>and be proud of it
because you're entitled and either way there are millions of people like you</p>
<p>I think it comes down to how you view other people less fortunate than yourself. How would you or even should you... help them? </p>
<p>If you can only think of one side of that question there you are.</p>
<p>::same for liberals:
admit that you're naive
and admit that you're willing to put your country in danger to protect abstractions::</p>
<p>Um, I believe President Bush has put our country in more danger over the past 5 years than any other since Nixon. Naive? Am I naive to think that the government should stay the hell out of people's private lives, has a responsibility to give the poor at least some standard of living, and NEEDS to collect taxes to function? No, I think of myself as extremely realistic. On the other hand, the Bush administration is so 'idealistic' that they think people (and by people I mean rich people) shouldn't have to pay taxes, that everyone should live according to the principles of evangelical Christianity, and that the poor will lift themselves out of misery all by themselves! That's what I call naive.</p>
<p>"I believe President Bush has put our country in more danger over the past 5 years than any other since Nixon"</p>
<p>I don't think that's fair to Nixon. Tricky did not hurt America on an international level. He ended the war and opened relations with China. Remember ping pong dipolmacy? Nixon's screw up was to hide illegal domestic actions. the coverup. </p>
<p>GW will go in history below Dick N. as far as presidents go with foriegn policy.
I don't know if it's right to throw Dick N. in gw's face.</p>
<p>Have it your way, then, Johnson! The point is that I'm tired of Republicans claiming to have the upper hand when it comes to nat'l security, when really W. has done nothing but endanger our nat'l security.</p>
<p>Have it your way, then, Johnson! "</p>
<p>No, Lynden Johnson brought about civil rights. He will be known for social policies that gave the poor some help. Again GW is in a class by himself. Believe me I side with you, but it's not fair to these other guys as while they either failed domestically or internationally, GW has failed both. I think we have to go aways back to find a comparable boob. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, you're right about GW, it's just not fair to those other presidents who when we look back we find something favorable to remember. What will we remember about GW? Inaction prior to 9/11? Abandoning Bin Laden when the best opportunity was there? Invading Iraq for WMDs? Mission accomplished? Attempting to amend our constitution to discriminate? Katrina? the axis of evil? Boy I could go on and on.. </p>
<p>The only people who will look back favorably at this point in history as the good ole days will be the obsenely wealthy. Ah the salad days.</p>
<p>A few points:</p>
<p>First, post #22 is really, really stupid. It's long enough to make one think at first glance that it may actually contain arguments that can be intellectually supported. However, one quickly realizes that it's full of ad homs and false associations (conservative = Republican).</p>
<p>Second, there is a fundamental difference between a flawed ideology and a flawed statesman. Neoconservative foreign policy ideology, even the ideology of preemption, is not necessarily all that bad. As a lone hegemon with overwhelming global preponderance, it's actually a really good way of maintaining the status quo and the current global order, which is so advantageous to us. The fact that we have someone who's kind of incapable of leading in power right now doesn't mean the ideology should be discredited.</p>
<p>Case in point - perhaps if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, communism (a really stupid idea) might have succeeded. At the same time, FDR (a really good leader) made a really stupid idea (wartime socialism) work. Good ideas can be killed by bad leaders, and bad ideas can flourish under good leaders. </p>
<p>And even the Republican party isn't that bad, sorry kids. Here's the thing - Republicans oftentimes have to pander to people who they're not really ideologically aligned with to get elected and stay in office, such as the religious right. The leaked Oval Office memo of a few weeks ago of senior level aids mocking faith based initiatives as "crazy" and "cooks" is very instructive here. The Democrats do the same thing, as per my previous post. They pander to poor people, stupid college students, labor unions who only have a very shortsighted self interest in mind, and farm subsidies and such which really shouldn't have been created in the first place and should just go overseas. EVERYONE HAS TO PAY THE PIPER SOMETIME. It's fine to point out when one group of people does it, but if you're bit ching, make sure you catch when your own people do it, especially when they do it more and to groups that are more harmful in the long run.</p>
<p>And I welcome any of you to take shots at me. I am an atheist, pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage. I come from a middle class background, and my parents vote for liberal candidates. Don't get me wrong for one second, though: I am a CONSERVATIVE. And I'm fully open to debate.</p>
<p>I personally associate as being fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I am a huge supporter of small government, low taxes, no religion mixed with government (AT ALL), and uber importantly balanced budgets. I do not support welfare programs or intensive hand outs of money, but I am pro-choice, pro-legalization of drugs, and pro-leglization of gay marraige. I think that it is not the governments job to butt into people's home lives in any way, shape or form as long as no one is being hurt. </p>
<p>When it comes down to voting, however, I will always go with the liberal canidate because I place a higher value on my social beliefs. I would rather pay taxes out of my butt and have legal abortions available, religion not mixed with the government, and legal gay marraige. Social issues will shape a country for a long time while fiscal issues can be corrected.</p>
<p>It's important to remember that the republican party right now is not the traditional republican party. My econ prof told the class the other day that GW has us in more debt than all of the past national debt we've ever been in, cumulatively from the beginning of the country, and that is taking inflation into account. I find that just staggering, especially since when he arrived in office there was a slight surplus. </p>
<p>For all of the crap Clinton got about his PERSONAL life, he was an excellent president. Our economy was booming, social issues were being handled well, everything was awesome. Then ykw came in and really just shredded it. And you can't blame it on 9/11 because he did so many things wrong. Everything that I support that is conservative in nature, Bush has screwed up.</p>
<p>Lots of mislabeling going on here. Read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism</a></p>
<p>Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.</p>
<p>Winston Churchill</p>
<p>I'm a young conservative and I most definitely have a heart. And I'm NOT a libertarian.</p>
<p>And for all you Bush bashers--I went back to my elementary school to observe and the curriculum had changed because of NCLB. The fourth graders that I saw were reading and writing much better than we ever did in fourth grade, and the instruction seemed much more focused on the fundamentals, which is exactly what you need for success in other areas! You can't learn history and science without reading, writing, and arithmetic! NCLB is WORKING and it's a GLORIOUS REVOLUTION!!! Even if you don't agree with standardized tests, I think our country needs standards and you need some benchmark test for them, so therefore it is necessary and proper to use standardized testing.</p>
<p>As a teacher, yes, it's good to teach to the content of the test. But that doesn't mean you can't reach out and go beyound it! You just need to be creative! And when these teachers see their former students better off in terms of knowledge than the generation before them they too just might praise Bush.</p>
<p>I'm proud to be a conservative education major. I know I'm in the minority, which is a bummer, but the party definitely knows what's right for our children. No child will be left behind!!!</p>
<p>Ahahaha umm... I'm glad none of my teachers were brainwashed zealots... Your post was kinda scary</p>