Why are most young people liberal?

[Reignspike]

In another thread, we hit on this topic, and I'd like some discussion and ideas. Why is it that most young people are liberal?

For those of you not in the US, "liberal" may mean something different to you, so I'll describe it a bit. Here it's almost like Democratic-Socialism, as I understand the term; supporting high amounts of government social support programs, many limits on individual leeway (like gun control), and so on. If you want to provide a different definition of liberal, please feel free.

I don't care whether you are or aren't liberal, and I don't want a discussion about what's better -- I'd just like to know why young people believe the way they do (and conversely, why older people are more likely to be conservative).

If you dispute the claim that most young people are liberal, that's fine, but please provide sources.

[Benovere]

Because the conservative people the young people have been exposed to are Bush, Bush jr, and Arnold Schwartzenager. All three are not that good at leading, and so young people's mind turned to the democrats (Im referring to the smart young people. The idiots just followed the smart people's advice. Damn sheep.) Older people prefer the conservatives because, idealy, the Republicans try to keep things sane and orderly by not changing anything, which can be good or bad at times. Reagen was better than Clinton.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Well, in the U.S it's a simple matter of the examples being set. As young, impressionable minds turn into politics, they tend to view their surroundings as a way to get a foothold. And what do they see? Clinton has a great presidential term, with great, lasting effects. Bush, so far, has faced a series of horrible problems (Some of them his fault, some of them not) as well as a war then serves as a perfect example of what NOT to do in a succesful campaign. Who's party will they prefer?

Now, let's switch it up; let's say that the current president was someone great like Nixon (that's right, I called him great). There are going to be a LOT more people following his ideologies. It's also the reason that it seems like I see more and more people converting from Protestantism to Catholicism; fall out from one of the greatest Popes we've ever had.

[Reignspike]

OK, so you're both saying that it's based on role models. I think that's a valid point, but to try to verify that, I did web searches for data going back farther, such as to Reagan's time (where Jimmy Carter had pretty much screwed everything up, so it looked the opposite of today). All of the data I could find says that the younger people voted Democrat more than Republican (though in 1980 not by as big a margin).

Do you still believe it's role models in the Presidency itself, or does this change your argument?

[D2Kvirus]

If anything, the majority of 14 year olds on this board are right-wing.

[Reignspike]

Errmmm.... how do we know anyone's age? I could say I'm 3 1/2 and you wouldn't know any different, right?

Or are you making a crack about conservatives? If that's the case, I ask you nicely to please refrain. I'd like a serious discussion.

[D2Kvirus]

At 8/19/07 07:51 AM, Reignspike wrote: Errmmm.... how do we know anyone's age? I could say I'm 3 1/2 and you wouldn't know any different, right?

Because it's listed on most users' profiles. That's why they ask you to add your DOB. Click my profile for an example.

Or are you making a crack about conservatives? If that's the case, I ask you nicely to please refrain. I'd like a serious discussion.

No, I'm making an observation - most of the younger poosters are:
a.) Conservative
b.) Flamers
c,) COnservative flamers

[Pheidippides]

At 8/19/07 07:46 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: If anything, the majority of 14 year olds on this board are right-wing.

The exact opposite of what I have noticed. Of course, you usually don't even notice the 14 year old liberals who get their posts deleted for talking about the exact same shit they always do without using the search bar. You know the people I'm talking about. "OMG bush is t3h sux0rz cuz hez relijus and w33d is illiegal heil hitler lol"

[Reignspike]

At 8/19/07 08:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Because [age is] listed on most users' profiles. That's why they ask you to add your DOB. Click my profile for an example.

I tried that. Didn't see an age. And now that I think about it, I didn't put a DOB in when I signed up earlier today. Maybe you're thinking of before the site redesign? Or maybe I'm just blind.

No, I'm making an observation - most of the younger poosters are:
a.) Conservative
b.) Flamers
c,) COnservative flamers

Well, I've certainly seen a lot of flames, here. Kind of bothers me, actually. I'm just hoping that there are enough non-flamers that we can actually get some intellectual repartee.

So why do you think they're conservative, then? And do you think that's common on all internet sites, or peculiar to NG?

[D2Kvirus]

You just need toi take a look at the We Need Gun Control topic, you'll notice the younger posters are the conservative trolls that aren't contributing and have no understanding of basic concepts involved with the argument. Or their whole contribution is to type "SECOND AMENDMENT 1337!!!" and bail - despite the fact that's actually where the problems start and their argument fails.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

At 8/19/07 08:19 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: You just need toi take a look at the We Need Gun Control topic, you'll notice the younger posters are the conservative trolls that aren't contributing and have no understanding of basic concepts involved with the argument. Or their whole contribution is to type "SECOND AMENDMENT 1337!!!" and bail - despite the fact that's actually where the problems start and their argument fails.

Then you need to take a trip to the Official Bush Topic. Seriously, read through it a little bit, and you'll find exactly the kind of people I'm talking about.

[Elfer]

It's because we don't have to work to support ourselves, and we don't really pay taxes, so all of these social programs seem wonderful and magic with no drawbacks.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 09:33 AM, Elfer wrote: It's because we don't have to work to support ourselves, and we don't really pay taxes, so all of these social programs seem wonderful and magic with no drawbacks.

universal healthcare seems like a good idea same as social security. theyre mutually beneficial to the wider community. it's only that republicanism is built on stupidity and a class system.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

universal healthcare seems like a good idea same as social security. theyre mutually beneficial to the wider community. it's only that republicanism is built on stupidity and a class system.

I know, social security is working so perfectly, right? Also, republicanism is built on the fact that the harder you work, the more you deserve, and therefore should not be brought down to make the lazy a little bit happier.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 09:46 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote:

universal healthcare seems like a good idea same as social security. theyre mutually beneficial to the wider community. it's only that republicanism is built on stupidity and a class system.

I know, social security is working so perfectly, right? Also, republicanism is built on the fact that the harder you work, the more you deserve, and therefore should not be brought down to make the lazy a little bit happier.

i never said the social security system was without it's flaws. but think about it this way, would you rather a starving desperate underclass with no socio-economic security to be living amongst you? i'd rather not have someone potentially lethal living next to me. by providing welfare programs we can at least give them a little piece of mind which in turn provides us with more security.

and no republicanism is built on a farce. 'moral values' are used to persuade people to vote for them in the interests of just that.. unholding 'moral values' at the expense of oneself. i can understand the ideology of 'ive worked for this, bitch, why should i give anything to you' but being a social species this mind-set is counter-productive to the rest of the population. republicanism also only serves to benefit the upper-class and primarily the elite.

[Elfer]

At 8/19/07 09:39 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/19/07 09:33 AM, Elfer wrote: It's because we don't have to work to support ourselves, and we don't really pay taxes, so all of these social programs seem wonderful and magic with no drawbacks.

universal healthcare seems like a good idea same as social security. theyre mutually beneficial to the wider community. it's only that republicanism is built on stupidity and a class system.

Oh, I know that universal healthcare is a good system, it's far more efficient than private companies.

[SmilezRoyale]

Everyone here so far has looked at the raw basis but There are a few things that some people left out:

- Yes, #1 is that teenagers don't have jobs where they're payed enough to support themselfs with surplus, only enough, [if and only if they do have jobs, they obviously can't get a carrier at highschool in the standard case] so that they can put it on a savings account for college while being provided food clothing and shelter by the money of they're parents. Since they don't make the kind of money that a middle class adult makes, they either lack the knowledge of the value or money, or more simply, the adamant frustration that occurs when on your paycheck the government has taken out 20, 30, and sometimes even 40 percent based on your earnings. This is probably why they favor the liberal idea of raising taxes on the rich, completely unware that they're parents are earning middle to upper class salaries and are slightly less having half of it taken away, [Which is why they think they're poor] Once they start making what they think are big bucks in a carrier, they'll understand what it really means to be part of the "upper class" in the eyes of a liberal.

- #2: i think most likely the more prominent reason is because teenagers have the 'no one tells me what to do' additude, And democrats, though not really liberals, are key proponents of individual rights.

They're also more active on the internet, which is extremely anti-bush, pro leftist, but this might be the reverse reasoning, IE the teenagers make it that way and the internet is they're reflection, not the other way around.

In terms of television i think most of them would be bored listening to a debate between 2 individuals [i havn't found a single live debate that i found interesting when one individual could just yell himself over another; the reason i like presidential ones, you can't do that shit] Hence! they'd probably be more interested in short headlines to get whatever they wanted to support an idea; and since economic depression in the united states combined with the casual casualties of the [war in you-know-where] i think it's very easy to become a liberal.

-#3 i think the greatest testamate to the liberal thinking is the phrase, taken from a song by john lennon "Imagine a world". And kids as you know, can be very imaginative, so to speak; though not as skilled as taking something and putting it into action.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

i never said the social security system was without it's flaws. but think about it this way, would you rather a starving desperate underclass with no socio-economic security to be living amongst you? i'd rather not have someone potentially lethal living next to me. by providing welfare programs we can at least give them a little piece of mind which in turn provides us with more security.

I never said anything about getting rid of social security, I only want it to be privatized so the government can keep its grubby hands off of it.

i can understand the ideology of 'ive worked for this, bitch, why should i give anything to you' but being a social species this mind-set is counter-productive to the rest of the population. republicanism also only serves to benefit the upper-class and primarily the elite.

On the contrary, if you knew anything about economics, you'd know that the rich are the ones who provide us jobs, and the more money they have, they lower they can keep prices, so we can buy more shit. I would hardly think having more jobs and lower prices is "counter-productive" to the rest of the population. The less socialism we have, the more competition, jobs, and cheaper goods are available, and the hard-working people are rewarded greatly for their efforts. In conclusion, you are a dipshit with worse logic than that of a lemming with Down Syndrome.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 10:08 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote:

i never said the social security system was without it's flaws. but think about it this way, would you rather a starving desperate underclass with no socio-economic security to be living amongst you? i'd rather not have someone potentially lethal living next to me. by providing welfare programs we can at least give them a little piece of mind which in turn provides us with more security.

I never said anything about getting rid of social security, I only want it to be privatized so the government can keep its grubby hands off of it.

But you implied it was (for lack of a better word) crap. And how would you go about privatizing social security? I'm curious.

On the contrary, if you knew anything about economics, you'd know that the rich are the ones who provide us jobs,

Yes they provide us with jobs.

and the more money they have, they lower they can keep prices,

Not true. Income disparity has nothing to do with lower prices. The word you're looking for is capitalism.

so we can buy more shit.

Yes because having 1% of the population increase their wealth disproportionately to the rest of the population and average economy growth will help us 'buy more shit'.

I'll put this in simple terms for you. Assume there is Z. Now there are groups B and A. If over one year A gains more of Z then B stands to lose whatever A gains of Z.

I would hardly think having more jobs and lower prices is "counter-productive" to the rest of the population. The less socialism we have, the more competition, jobs, and cheaper goods are available, and the hard-working people are rewarded greatly for their efforts.

See this isn't true again. Most hard-working people aren't rewarded greatly for their efforts, all of these profits are given to the wealthy whilst the minimum wage across the country has grown very little and at a slower rate then inflation. Social implementations such as uhc don't affect the wider economy and competitiveness at all as a matter of fact it's been proven to be a more effective and efficient system then privatized healthcare.

In conclusion, you are a dipshit with worse logic than that of a lemming with Down Syndrome.

lol

[Draconias]

The blaring liberalism of this thread so far is astounding, and is a lot of the misinformation.

1. In terms of who shouts loudest and more, there are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored, just as it is in the full population. However, the same influences that contributed to an ultra-liberal youth population a few decades ago still exist:

2. Free money, free time, and free of obligations. When you don't have to pay for your own living, you live comfortably in the middle class, and you leeh off your parents for virtually everything, it seems very easy to begin idealizing politics and favoring "perfect" ideas like Communism and Universal Healthcare-- as long as you don't actually look at the real-world details. It's a matter of baseless dreaming because it's free benefits for you, without costs to you (because you don't have a decent job). Also, such people have a large amount of free time to waste browsing Internet forums and spamming ideas, even if they don't have enuogh to actually think out their ideas first. These are people of words, not action.

3. What jobs these people do get are the worst of the worst-- working at McDonalds, whatever, but they often react to those jobs in a very negative manner because it clashes with their middle class background (and the jobs just suck), so one of the common steps is to jump to the "evils" of Capitalism by some degree.

4. Liberal forumers don't get challenged enough. More often than not, they will "swarm" on a board, reinforcing each other without actually contributing anything meaningful, and ready to ward off any countering opinions that come up.

5. A lot fo the conservative youth don't waste time on forums because it is a matter of what they know, not what they think. If you don't have an ideology that you feel needs to be "spread to the heathens," then you have less urge to go out to forums and such and do so.

6. Purely opinion: I also think liberal youth like to flame and spam more as a matter of personality. and inherent quality.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

But you implied it was (for lack of a better word) crap. And how would you go about privatizing social security? I'm curious.

I said social security sucked because it was in the hands of the government, who spends it all the time and will continue spending it until there's nothing left. And I think we all know what will happen if there's nothing left.

Yes they provide us with jobs.

Indeed, and the more money they have to spend, the more jobs they can give.

Not true. Income disparity has nothing to do with lower prices. The word you're looking for is capitalism.

If they don't have as much money taken away from them to pour into shitty, inefficient programs, then of course they can have more money to spend and thus, have lower prices (because they have more to sell) in order to compete on the market.

Yes because having 1% of the population increase their wealth disproportionately to the rest of the population and average economy growth will help us 'buy more shit'.

Better than taking money away from them just to throw at the lazy.

I'll put this in simple terms for you. Assume there is Z. Now there are groups B and A. If over one year A gains more of Z then B stands to lose whatever A gains of Z.

You're not explaining it very well. So A gains some Z then B loses what A gains of Z? How does B lose what A has?

See this isn't true again. Most hard-working people aren't rewarded greatly for their efforts, all of these profits are given to the wealthy whilst the minimum wage across the country has grown very little and at a slower rate then inflation.

Hard-working people who strive to achieve don't have to worry about minimum wage anyway. And no fucking duh the profits are given to the rich, that's who everyone else is buying from. However, a smart business owner would do well to put at least some of the profit into the business to improve it, and make more people spend their money on it. And who benefits from the rich competing against other rich people? EVERYONE.

Social implementations such as uhc don't affect the wider economy and competitiveness at all as a matter of fact it's been proven to be a more effective and efficient system then privatized healthcare.

Social Implementations DO affect the economy, bitch. People have to actually PAY for it through taxes, so they have less money to spend, and also, UHC would get rid of the competition to find better treatments and medicine, and therefore technology would improve at a much slower rate.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 11:00 AM, Draconias wrote: The blaring liberalism of this thread so far is astounding, and is a lot of the misinformation.

1. In terms of who shouts loudest and more, there are more liberals in today's youth, but among the youngest voters, conservatism is actually favored, just as it is in the full population.

So what youre saying is conservatives are over-represented in the polls.

they also have a large base of old people that do nothing more then bitch.

However, the same influences that contributed to an ultra-liberal youth population a few decades ago still exist:

2. Free money, free time, and free of obligations. When you don't have to pay for your own living, you live comfortably in the middle class, and you leeh off your parents for virtually everything, it seems very easy to begin idealizing politics and favoring "perfect" ideas like Communism and Universal Healthcare-- as long as you don't actually look at the real-world details. It's a matter of baseless dreaming because it's free benefits for you, without costs to you (because you don't have a decent job). Also, such people have a large amount of free time to waste browsing Internet forums and spamming ideas, even if they don't have enuogh to actually think out their ideas first. These are people of words, not action.

that's pretty well thought out. i suppose the only flaw is that we're the ones that protest and join activist groups while old conservatives get angry about the 'crazy hippy youth'.

3. What jobs these people do get are the worst of the worst-- working at McDonalds, whatever, but they often react to those jobs in a very negative manner because it clashes with their middle class background (and the jobs just suck), so one of the common steps is to jump to the "evils" of Capitalism by some degree.

what about places like new york which are heavily liberal? are all those big buildings mcdonalds and wendys?

4. Liberal forumers don't get challenged enough. More often than not, they will "swarm" on a board, reinforcing each other without actually contributing anything meaningful, and ready to ward off any countering opinions that come up.

except that on newgrounds most posters seem to be 15-18 yr old conservatives with the most asinine views on anything.

5. A lot fo the conservative youth don't waste time on forums because it is a matter of what they know, not what they think. If you don't have an ideology that you feel needs to be "spread to the heathens," then you have less urge to go out to forums and such and do so.

or maybe it's because they get enough sexy time from watching fox noise, political soundbites and talkback radio.

6. Purely opinion: I also think liberal youth like to flame and spam more as a matter of personality. and inherent quality.

from what ive seen on these forums though it appears as though the majority of people with decent/ rationalized posts are liberal and older.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

At 8/19/07 11:00 AM, Draconias wrote: stuff

Dammit, I almost forgot what the original topic was about.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

So what youre saying is conservatives are over-represented in the polls.

they also have a large base of old people that do nothing more then bitch.

EVERY political alignment has a large base of people that do nothing more than bitch

that's pretty well thought out. i suppose the only flaw is that we're the ones that protest and join activist groups while old conservatives get angry about the 'crazy hippy youth'.

That's probably the most hypocritical sentence I've ever read.

except that on newgrounds most posters seem to be 15-18 yr old conservatives with the most asinine views on anything.

Seriously, go read through the Official Bush Topic a little bit.

from what ive seen on these forums though it appears as though the majority of people with decent/ rationalized posts are liberal and older.

I could say the same thing about conservatives, but you you wouldn't take that seriously, because it's an OPINION. Therefore, it would be pointless to argue this with you.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 11:23 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote:

But you implied it was (for lack of a better word) crap. And how would you go about privatizing social security? I'm curious.

I said social security sucked because it was in the hands of the government, who spends it all the time and will continue spending it until there's nothing left. And I think we all know what will happen if there's nothing left.

no, tell me how youd privatize social security, im curious. youre also exaggerating the inefficiency of social security programs the government isn't consuming welfare resources unsustainably and with a lack of result.

Not true. Income disparity has nothing to do with lower prices. The word you're looking for is capitalism.

If they don't have as much money taken away from them to pour into shitty, inefficient programs, then of course they can have more money to spend and thus, have lower prices (because they have more to sell) in order to compete on the market.

umm.. what? i dont think you know what youre talking about.

Yes because having 1% of the population increase their wealth disproportionately to the rest of the population and average economy growth will help us 'buy more shit'.

Better than taking money away from them just to throw at the lazy.

except even the middle-class is affected by this

I'll put this in simple terms for you. Assume there is Z. Now there are groups B and A. If over one year A gains more of Z then B stands to lose whatever A gains of Z.

You're not explaining it very well. So A gains some Z then B loses what A gains of Z? How does B lose what A has?

Because Z is finite.

See this isn't true again. Most hard-working people aren't rewarded greatly for their efforts, all of these profits are given to the wealthy whilst the minimum wage across the country has grown very little and at a slower rate then inflation.

Hard-working people who strive to achieve don't have to worry about minimum wage anyway.

Yes, I'm just using it as an example and the middle-class work on salaries. the profits go to proprietors, executives, investors.

And no fucking duh the profits are given to the rich, that's who everyone else is buying from.

Except this doesn't address the point that we're getting poorer and they're getting richer. So your theory of 'them getting richer lets us buy more shit' is wrong.

Social implementations such as uhc don't affect the wider economy and competitiveness at all as a matter of fact it's been proven to be a more effective and efficient system then privatized healthcare.

Social Implementations DO affect the economy, bitch. People have to actually PAY for it through taxes, so they have less money to spend, and also, UHC would get rid of the competition to find better treatments and medicine, and therefore technology would improve at a much slower rate.

I should've said u.h.c won't affect the general economyt adversely given that it's more efficient (less waste of resources) and more effective (better healthcare).

You're also wrong in asserting the private healthcare industry do anything other then give hand-outs. Medical Research is conducted by universities, drug companies, independent scienctific institutions which are sponsored by non other then the government, universities and drug companies.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I have a novel theory. I think it's because most teachers are liberal. For example my teachers from kinder garden to high school were A.B.B.B, free money for all, super, hippy, yuppie Liberal stereotypes of the highest order and they had effectively brainwashed all the stupid kids in my class. How do I know because they all responded to my arguments exactly the same way like robots or clones it was creepy plus they had absolutely no reason to back up there beliefs. All I kept getting was "Bush is stupid" and when I ask why they think that, all I got was "he just is". Incidental I read that on my teacher's bumper sticker.

I also agree with the kids have know knowledge of real life theory too But I have yet to begin to pay taxes and I still comprehend them and the faults with wasteful social programs that give money to lazy people or that send illegal immigrants to collage when I can barley afford it.

Shortly after I was old enough to be aware of politics I began to resent liberals more and more and in a very short time (about a week of listening to democrats) I became highly conservative and I've yet to hear a legitimate argument from a democrat.

Now I not saying all liberals are stupid, but I've met hundreds of them and they were all stupid.

Any way I find it disturbing that so many people have beliefs based on peer pressure I was practically ostracized for being an open republican. The entire school at an assembly once started to laugh at me and I mean every student, teacher, and administrator. If I gave a flying fuck about peer pressure I might have been tempted to go left instead however I just grew more resentful and bitter.

I think politics should be taught by both democrats and republicans that way people can make up there own minds. Not just be taught what to think by some math or English teacher with an agenda.

Oh and I have to agree gorge bush Jr. is a horrible example of a republican But I take him over Hillary any day. Oh and don't get me started of Borak and Edwards. Or on my side Romney that's why I throwing my lot in with Giuliani he's the only candidate on either party that's ever done actual work, and did it well mind you.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

At 8/19/07 11:49 AM, tony4moroney wrote: stuff

Fine. You win. Anything that's math or economics related makes me sick to my stomach.

[Memorize]

Ain't social security grand?

You have to pay out of YOUR money every week that goes to the elderly, while not even knowing whether or not your own future is financially secure at that age.

T'is great.

Also wasteful, just like universal healthcare.

[SEXY-FETUS]

Tony it seems like you have a stereotype of conservatives completely pieced together from made for tv movies.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/19/07 11:52 AM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: I have a novel theory. I think it's because most teachers are liberal.

Teachers are only liberal because of unions. i suppose also because theyre working class and have a shred of intelligence unlike kansas. most teachers i had weren't pot-smoking hippies that talked about saving the planet, i'm sure nobody here has had a strongly liberally biased teacher/s that went on anti-bush and political tyrades.

they had effectively brainwashed all the stupid kids in my class. How do I know because they all responded to my arguments exactly the same way like robots or clones it was creepy plus they had absolutely no reason to back up there beliefs. All I kept getting was "Bush is stupid" and when I ask why they think that, all I got was "he just is". Incidental I read that on my teacher's bumper sticker.

That's because Bush is stupid and nobody likes him. How many people were even interested in politics in your high school? 1? 2? I don't recall ever getting into a heated debate about politics in high school at all.

I also agree with the kids have know knowledge of real life theory too But I have yet to begin to pay taxes and I still comprehend them and the faults with wasteful social programs that give money to lazy people or that send illegal immigrants to collage when I can barley afford it.

wait who's supporting paying illegal immigrant's college fees? and what social program are you referring to that's 'wasteful' i'll bet it's UHC and youd be wrong in assuming it is.

Shortly after I was old enough to be aware of politics I began to resent liberals more and more and in a very short time (about a week of listening to democrats) I became highly conservative and I've yet to hear a legitimate argument from a democrat.

Now I not saying all liberals are stupid, but I've met hundreds of them and they were all stupid.

you can say the exact same thing about republicans.

Any way I find it disturbing that so many people have beliefs based on peer pressure I was practically ostracized for being an open republican. The entire school at an assembly once started to laugh at me and I mean every student, teacher, and administrator. If I gave a flying fuck about peer pressure I might have been tempted to go left instead however I just grew more resentful and bitter.

LOL HAHA people laughed at you for being republican? I find that hilarious. They were dicks no doubt but oh well.

I think politics should be taught by both democrats and republicans that way people can make up there own minds. Not just be taught what to think by some math or English teacher with an agenda.

im curious now.. would the teaching profession be pursued by liberals? or do they convert to democrats becuase of self-interests?

Oh and I have to agree gorge bush Jr. is a horrible example of a republican But I take him over Hillary any day.

I'd take an ape over Bush, Hillary wouldn't be half as bad as him if at all.

Oh and don't get me started of Borak and Edwards. Or on my side Romney that's why I throwing my lot in with Giuliani he's the only candidate on either party that's ever done actual work, and did it well mind you.

wait you talk about liberals being ill-informed idiots and youre supporting giuliani? oh please. "he's the only one thats done any actual work" oh yeah, gravel hasn't done anything at all nor mccain.