Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left?

[Aquamarine]

http://www.techcentralstation.com/021304A.html

[Smurf]

because the right isn't smart enough to do it.

[Robert Zaleski]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[LURCH]

The Democratic party is generally seen as the more intellectual.

[Gokul43201]

Unless you get a decent education, you won't know Right from wrong ! :wink:

[selfAdjoint]

Because intelligent people with the GOP values ("He who dies with the most toys wins") won't be satisfied with the low pay in academia.

[arildno]

Because intelligent people with the GOP values ("He who dies with the most toys wins") won't be satisfied with the low pay in academia.
What does "GOP" (values) stand for?
It sounds a bit like what a swine aiming to become the fattest little piggy in the pigsty might call "values"..

[Gokul43201]

And there's that rule about not carrying guns to school... :biggrin:

[Gokul43201]

Mostly, the GoP stands for : less Government; less regulation; fiscal conservatism; reduction of restrictions on firearms use; prohibition of abortion and stem cell research; prevention of gay marriage; business over environment; projecting and employing military might as the best means of deterrence; privatization of social security; less (and flatter) taxes; more death penalty; elimination of welfare programs; more capitalism in general.

I think I got many of the main ideas - I may have missed a few.

PS : GOP itself stands for Grand Ol' Party

[gravenewworld]

LOL if conservatives ran education, we would still be learning how the world is flat. Anyone else who said differently would be crucified by conservatives. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to lean towards the left.

[phatmonky]

Mostly, the GoP stands for : less Government; less regulation; fiscal conservatism; reduction of restrictions on firearms use; prohibition of abortion and stem cell research; prevention of gay marriage; business over environment; projecting and employing military might as the best means of deterrence; privatization of social security; less (and flatter) taxes; more death penalty; elimination of welfare programs; more capitalism in general.

I think I got many of the main ideas - I may have missed a few.

PS : GOP itself stands for Grand Ol' Party

Since this is just about the only non-rhetorical answer in this thread I'll address it. The rest of you really need to grow up.

You are mostly right, however there are some very important details you left out.
-prohibition of government funding for abortion and a moratorium on stem cell research from fetus'. Prohibition on late term abortion.
-States' rights on gay marriage, not prevention of.
-environment with a cost/benefit analysis

[Gokul43201]

-States' rights on gay marriage, not prevention of.


Yes, the GoP is a strong proponent of State's Rights, but then wouldn't the Bush proposal for amendment be in conflict with GoP ideas. Why does this proposal have such strong backing from the GoP faithful, then ?

(The rest of this thread is meant in a lighter vein...so don't get mad.)

[setAI]

I grow more and more tired of the folk/media political philosophy that conservativism and liberalism are like equal opposite views with a balanced debate of the issues-

let me be clear and unambiguous: the reason why virtually all "smart" and educated/scientific/artistic people are liberals is simply because for the most part- what is called the "liberal/progressive agenda" is essentially the most REASONABLE/ CORRECT/ LOGICAL/ETHICAL and SENSIBLE way to order a society of intelligent beings-

the conservative ideology is both economically and ethically bankrupt- totally bereft of logic or compassion- and is nothing more than primitive illusions/ lies/ misunderstandings kludged into an untenable ideology ultimately designed to preserve and justify a narrow view/method of society by force and terror and ignorance

the conservative ideology is not in competition with the liberal/progressive ideology- conservativism is a primitive and fear-driven memetic parasite which acts to limit and threaten the health/optimized/balanced/proper development and maintenance of society- the liberal/progressive ideologies represent an optimal holistic balance while conservativism attempts to isolate and monopolize a small portion of society: a cancer-

it is time for all of those people with IQs over 80 that are NOT ruled by their material selfishness and/or the cultivated fears/prejudices of their childhood leading to dangerously fanatical deism to proclaim this truth- conservativism is not another view- it is a sickness of the collective soul-

in the future people with conservative views will be correctly diagnosed as suffering from forms of sociopathic neuroses [and treated]- it is nothing more than dangerous psychosocial dysfunction

----------------


I know some may think this is radicalism- sure it is- but it happens to be an accurate assesment based on all the anthropological/sociological evidence available- and these people threaten the continued existence of life on earth- so it is long past time to draw the line and state the truth before we are all destroyed

[check]

I think all voters should take a ‘political compass’ test. Just answer a bunch of Strongly disagree to strongly agree questions and find out where you actually fit and which party you should vote on based on your beliefs and not some preconceived notion that one party is better than another.

I finally go around to doing a bunch of those. I thought I was pretty liberal… turns out I’m pretty far left, lol. Oh well.

[phatmonky]

Yes, the GoP is a strong proponent of State's Rights, but then wouldn't the Bush proposal for amendment be in conflict with GoP ideas. Why does this proposal have such strong backing from the GoP faithful, then ?

(The rest of this thread is meant in a lighter vein...so don't get mad.)

Bush goes against the standard GOP platform in many ways, and there are plenty of us 'right wingers' that aren't happy about it.
But Bush's reasoning for pushing a ban has always been to subvert activist courts, and the subsequent, more realistic, amendment for states rights falls in line with what congress may just support.

From your post, i'm not sure you realized that Bush is not pushing for a gay marriage ban anymore. He has moved to a push for allowing states to disregard full faith and credit in regards to gay marriage, thus allowing each state to determine what they will recognize.

[phatmonky]

I grow more and more tired of the folk/media political philosophy that conservativism and liberalism are like equal opposite views with a balanced debate of the issues-

let me be clear and unambiguous: the reason why virtually all "smart" and educated/scientific/artistic people are liberals is simply because for the most part- what is called the "liberal/progressive agenda" is essentially the most REASONABLE/ CORRECT/ LOGICAL/ETHICAL and SENSIBLE way to order a society of intelligent beings-

the conservative ideology is both economically and ethically bankrupt- totally bereft of logic or compassion- and is nothing more than primitive illusions/ lies/ misunderstandings kludged into an untenable ideology ultimately designed to preserve and justify a narrow view/method of society by force and terror and ignorance

the conservative ideology is not in competition with the liberal/progressive ideology- conservativism is a primitive and fear-driven memetic parasite which acts to limit and threaten the health/optimized/balanced/proper development and maintenance of society- the liberal/progressive ideologies represent an optimal holistic balance while conservativism attempts to isolate and monopolize a small portion of society: a cancer-

it is time for all of those people with IQs over 80 that are NOT ruled by their material selfishness and/or the cultivated fears/prejudices of their childhood leading to dangerously fanatical deism to proclaim this truth- conservativism is not another view- it is a sickness of the collective soul-

in the future people with conservative views will be correctly diagnosed as suffering from forms of sociopathic neuroses [and treated]- it is nothing more than dangerous psychosocial dysfunction

----------------


I know some may think this is radicalism- sure it is- but it happens to be an accurate assesment based on all the anthropological/sociological evidence available- and these people threaten the continued existence of life on earth- so it is long past time to draw the line and state the truth before we are all destroyed

More pathetic elementary rhetoric. You act as if you are some how in this intelligent elite, but come spouting baseless crap like this?

[Gokul43201]

From your post, i'm not sure you realized that Bush is not pushing for a gay marriage ban anymore. He has moved to a push for allowing states to disregard full faith and credit in regards to gay marriage, thus allowing each state to determine what they will recognize.

I know he backed off some from his initial proposal, but until now, was unaware of the final version.

Why don't we see more of setAI here ? Sure would make for some entertaining exchanges... :wink:

[BobG]

I think all voters should take a ‘political compass’ test. Just answer a bunch of Strongly disagree to strongly agree questions and find out where you actually fit and which party you should vote on based on your beliefs and not some preconceived notion that one party is better than another.

I finally go around to doing a bunch of those. I thought I was pretty liberal… turns out I’m pretty far left, lol. Oh well.

Here's an interesting poll on individual's stand on the issues vs. their perception of the candidates views.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_voter-have-much-to-learn_09-29_pr.pdf

Of particular note, 43% oppose Bush's policy towards privatizing Social Security and only 37% agree. 44% agree with Kerry's policy and only 36% disagree. For the record, 56% favor privatization and 36% oppose.

This group also does some off the wall surveys. Turns out that people who watch late night comedy shows know more about current politics than those who don't watch late night comedy shows. Daily Show viewers are more savvy about current politics than Jay Leno or David Letterman viewers.

On the flip side, people who do watch network news shows know less about politics than those who don't (a little misleading by itself - those who watch cable news do know more about politics than non-cable viewers.) So, if you only watch network TV, you'll learn more from late night comedy shows than from network news?

[Gokul43201]

Here's an interesting poll on individual's stand on the issues vs. their perception of the candidates views.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_voter-have-much-to-learn_09-29_pr.pdf

Of particular note, 43% oppose Bush's policy towards privatizing Social Security and only 37% agree. 44% agree with Kerry's policy and only 36% disagree. For the record, 56% favor privatization and 36% oppose.

I've seen many examples of this kind of behavior. Part of the apparent contradiction is in the way the questions can be worded. For a large part, however, I think a majority of the people aswer with a "yes/no" answer, rather than an "I have no friggin' clue what you're talking about", so as to not appear unaware.

This group also does some off the wall surveys. Turns out that people who watch late night comedy shows know more about current politics than those who don't watch late night comedy shows. Daily Show viewers are more savvy about current politics than Jay Leno or David Letterman viewers.


Groovy, baby ! :biggrin: I watch the Daily Show and then the opening section of Leno and then, Charlie Rose. There's no conflict of time involved there.

[setAI]

I hate politics- so I normally don't discuss it- but right now the monkeys are trying to destroy civilization with their right-wing fear-based ape-mongering- so i come out of the woodwork a little-

to me the idea that conservativism is invalid/illogical/immoral is self-evident- and anyone who doesn't think it is self evident is probably not smart enough or is too deluded to be even classified as a "person" and I delight in the possibility that in the near future these malfunctioning biological mechanisms in the "red states" can be neurologically reprogrammed to serve some other useful purpose- by force if necessary- (^_^)

a lot of folks these days don't appreciate good old Futurist Fascist far-left ideology- they get really hot under the caller when you suggest that Democracy in a Capitalist society is extremely dangerous and foolish because the masses can be so easily fooled that such a society can easily be controlled by whoever has financial control of the media-and that the only way to run a society is an Oligarchy of Intelligencia- so I don't speak about politics much-

[Smurf]

Hopefully they won't get to us first.

[setAI]

Hopefully they won't get to us first.


the beautiful thing about rapidly increasing technology is that the smart people are the only ones that can understand how to use it at some point- and that being the ones that develop new technologies- smart people have the the chance to get there first-

also if you have the knowledge/tech to reprogram someone- you should also have the knowledge/tech to increase intelligence- if you increase intelligence [and repair dysfunction] you increase liberal ideology by default- there will be no neocon technological supermen in the future- if they are "super" then all of the factors that allow conservative ideology to exist will be repaired- and their intelligence will be too great to not see the immorality and inefficiency of conservativism- namely that short-term selfishness always cultivates long-term dispair in a world of limited resources-


if not- then we are all dead anyway

[Smurf]

I just can't help but thinking of a Dr. Evil scenario about taking over the minds of Earth.

[Smurf]

I grow more and more tired of the folk/media political philosophy that conservativism and liberalism are like equal opposite views with a balanced debate of the issues-

let me be clear and unambiguous: the reason why virtually all "smart" and educated/scientific/artistic people are liberals is simply because for the most part- what is called the "liberal/progressive agenda" is essentially the most REASONABLE/ CORRECT/ LOGICAL/ETHICAL and SENSIBLE way to order a society of intelligent beings-

the conservative ideology is both economically and ethically bankrupt- totally bereft of logic or compassion- and is nothing more than primitive illusions/ lies/ misunderstandings kludged into an untenable ideology ultimately designed to preserve and justify a narrow view/method of society by force and terror and ignorance

the conservative ideology is not in competition with the liberal/progressive ideology- conservativism is a primitive and fear-driven memetic parasite which acts to limit and threaten the health/optimized/balanced/proper development and maintenance of society- the liberal/progressive ideologies represent an optimal holistic balance while conservativism attempts to isolate and monopolize a small portion of society: a cancer-

it is time for all of those people with IQs over 80 that are NOT ruled by their material selfishness and/or the cultivated fears/prejudices of their childhood leading to dangerously fanatical deism to proclaim this truth- conservativism is not another view- it is a sickness of the collective soul-

in the future people with conservative views will be correctly diagnosed as suffering from forms of sociopathic neuroses [and treated]- it is nothing more than dangerous psychosocial dysfunction

----------------


I know some may think this is radicalism- sure it is- but it happens to be an accurate assesment based on all the anthropological/sociological evidence available- and these people threaten the continued existence of life on earth- so it is long past time to draw the line and state the truth before we are all destroyed

I can't wait for Kat to see this :rofl: :rofl:

[BoulderHead]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach....Those who can't teach, coach. Those who can't coach, teach history.


Anyone hear that before?

[Smurf]

Those who can't coach, teach History. Those who can't teach history, make history.

[phatmonky]

Those who can't coach, teach History. Those who can't teach history, make history.

Those who can't make history.....


eh, nevermind.

[Smurf]

Those who can't make history.....


eh, nevermind.
Wonder why democrats hold all the intellectual positions in Society?

[kat]

I can't wait for Kat to see this :rofl: :rofl:
Lol, I'm not sure what you expect from me...he seems a little extremist and I'm not sure I fit the "conservative" label. I'm more of a disenchanted left winged right handed independent. I'd probably vote democratic if I saw the true "leftist" ideals there..but I don't. What I see is a lot of "stay the same stay them same" and way tooo much soft bigotry trying to display itself as rightous indignation. I remember when the left fought for freedom and human rights for the down trodden, even if they were brown, olive or black and not American. The presumed "Liberal Left" seems to mouth a lot of platitudes but they're not doing a whole hell of a lot to improve the lives of the downtrodden.

[Smurf]

You definitly come off as Conservative. Definitly

[kat]

Wonder why democrats hold all the intellectual positions in Society?
because honey....they just can't make it in the real world. :wink:

[Smurf]

Oh god, I hate it when people say **** like that. *runs around screaming*

[Gokul43201]

Smurf, you get that impression of Kat only because of her opinion of Kerry. I've heard her arguing against polluting energy companies, for international observation during elections, and a few other liberal issues.

[Smurf]

Like I said she comes across as Conservative. I've only seen her arguing about politics so I don't doubt that Gokul.

[kat]

You definitly come off as Conservative. Definitly
Conservatives favor traditional views and values and oppose change.
I support abortion rights, gay rights, feminist rights, mens rights...I support HR for ALL, not just americans and westerners......I DON"T buy the soft bigotry of those who call themselves "leftist" you're not the left, not in any shape or form. I despise the voice "ANSWER" and unfortunately many of those who think they're "lefty's" are nothing more then mouthpieces for hateful and equally conservative groups that are hiding underneath a label they've granted themselves....but they have NOT earned it.

[Moonbear]

So, if you only watch network TV, you'll learn more from late night comedy shows than from network news?

Well, as someone who refuses to be extorted by cable companies, so only has network TV or no TV, I'd have to say...yes. More politics are covered in Jay Leno's opening monologue than in the network nightly news. Or at least Jay covers both parties pretty equally, while the network news is terribly one-sided. I don't know what I'd do without the internet!

[phatmonky]

Wonder why democrats hold all the intellectual positions in Society?

I can't answer that fallacy :smile:

[Smurf]

Conservatives favor traditional views and values and oppose change.
I support abortion rights, gay rights, feminist rights, mens rights...I support HR for ALL, not just americans and westerners......I DON"T buy the soft bigotry of those who call themselves "leftist" you're not the left, not in any shape or form. I despise the voice "ANSWER" and unfortunately many of those who think they're "lefty's" are nothing more then mouthpieces for hateful and equally conservative groups that are hiding underneath a label they've granted themselves....but they have NOT earned it.

I'm a revolutionist.

[Dissident Dan]

Colleges are filled with liberals because they're filled with educated people who want to lead careers that are beneficial to others.

The web page referenced in the post was completely wacko. Sure, I'll readily admit that there's a liberal majority in colleges...but that doesn't make them commie pinkos as the author of that article suggests. It continues to astound me that right-wingers still think that liberals/lefties are automatically pinkos. They have absolutely no idea of the people they disagree with actually think. They have these myopic, propoganda-induced, binary views of the world and its people.

[Gokul43201]

...binary views of the world and its people.

I get that impression too.

[BobG]

Well, as someone who refuses to be extorted by cable companies, so only has network TV or no TV, I'd have to say...yes. More politics are covered in Jay Leno's opening monologue than in the network nightly news. Or at least Jay covers both parties pretty equally, while the network news is terribly one-sided. I don't know what I'd do without the internet!

Yeah, like I said, it seemed like an off the wall survey. It tells more about the level of political interest of the viewers than explains where they get their info from. With newspapers, news magazines, network news, cable news, and the internet, there's lot of ways to learn about what's going on.

[aeroegnr]

I'm worried about anything that the universities seem to follow, in general.

Why?

How old is the average undergraduate student? 19? 20?
It seems to me that a great amount of U.S. undergraduate students have been cut off from real society for at least 13 years(compulsory public education), and have then been transferred to a utopian society (university) without ever having to deal seriously with supporting themselves. Not only that, but they have spend a huge percentage of their life with "peers" only their same age. This is an extremely dangerous situation and is a recent development that is gradually causing problems in society, and is also unconstitutionally forcing schooling on every child. There is also an artificial class system which is based entirely and ludicrusly on the ability of the person when they are at the ages of 7 or younger (segregation into "honors," "gifted," "SLD," you name it). This can be a traumatizing experience for any child, when they are told repeatedly that they can never perform at the same level as other students, until they start to believe it. More meat for the grinder.

This is not true in all cases, but in general this is the case, and I'm sticking to it.

So there we have it, a whole population of voters, the vast amount of whom have never held a full time job and have been told what to do, when to do it, and how to act for at least 13 years of their life. That is not a healthy population by any means, ask Albert Einstein, who hated German Gymnasiums (and it is the Prussian schooling system which influenced us so much before the first world war), Benjamin Franklin, who barely went to formal school, or George Washington, who made a great deal of money at a young age by surveying property (I seem to remember seeing one of his surveying books at the library of congress when I went).

Not only that, but solid courses in History are not being taught in high school, basic philosophy is not a necessity in universities as a whole, and there is a lack of meaningful interaction with elder generations (and I don't mean one middle aged professor lecturing in front of a 150 person class). All of these point to a rebellious youth because they never did take an active role in their 13 years of growing up.

[Gokul43201]

Yeah, I think they should raise the minimum voting age to something like 25. No, wait, I'm serious. Give the people a chance to have experienced what it is to
complete an eduction;
earn a living;
pax taxes;
(think about, if not) get married/start a family;
pay for gas, medical help, insurance;
think about abortion from a selfish point of view;
(not have to) go through the draft;
look at smoking, alcohol abuse and drug addiction objectively....


I don't see that low voter turnout is a problem. But I do think ignorant voters deciding the fate of a country is.

[kat]

aeroegnr-
Bravo! Couldn't agree more! I homeschooled 2 very productive and intelligent young men and live in an area with a very large % of homeschoolers. On the whole they (homeschoolers) are far more mature, responsible and knowledgable in real life applications.

[BobG]

Yeah, I think they should raise the minimum voting age to something like 25. No, wait, I'm serious. Give the people a chance to have experienced what it is to
complete an eduction;
earn a living;
pax taxes;
(think about, if not) get married/start a family;
pay for gas, medical help, insurance;
think about abortion from a selfish point of view;
(not have to) go through the draft;
look at smoking, alcohol abuse and drug addiction objectively....


I don't see that low voter turnout is a problem. But I do think ignorant voters deciding the fate of a country is.

Oh, my! :eek: It's Abby Hoffman with grey hair! :rofl:

In spite of the fact that I was very much in favor of the voting age being lowered from 21 to 18 when I was in high school, I think you do have a valid point. It's no coincidence that auto insurance rates drop dramatically once you hit 25. Not sure I'd actually support raising the voting age, but I'd at least think about it.

[Smurf]

If old farts who's minds are still clouded by the propoganda of the Cold war are allowed to vote, then why can't we. In fact, lets just limit voting to anyone with an IQ of x and above, or maybe an SAT limit, EQ should be considered as well, possibly more important than IQ, can't have anyone who disagrees with us vote.

[Gokul43201]

The idea is that a 6 year-old is (statistically shown to be) incapable of making an informed political decision while a 60 year-old isn't. I'm just setting out more criteria for what makes a person capable. If 18 was chosen on the basis of it being the age of a typical high school graduate, is that sufficient reason ? At 18, you are not a minor anymore, but are a large majority of 18-year olds financially independent ? I may be wrong, but I think not.

[Smurf]

If they were voting on every Issue and every Law, then by all means this would be a valid argument. But they're not, they're voting on President, this severly limits the effect they have on the country. If you want better Presidents you don't change the voters, you change how the candidates are selected.

[Gokul43201]

I'm not saying this is how it should be - mostly because I haven't given it enough thought or discussion - but I think my argument for what makes a person "aware" holds some water.

[russ_watters]

This is where I stopped reading and I'll address this one because while it (apparently) is your honest opinion, I find it kinda funny.I grow more and more tired of the folk/media political philosophy that conservativism and liberalism are like equal opposite views with a balanced debate of the issues-

let me be clear and unambiguous: the reason why virtually all "smart" and educated/scientific/artistic people are liberals is simply because for the most part- what is called the "liberal/progressive agenda" is essentially the most REASONABLE/ CORRECT/ LOGICAL/ETHICAL and SENSIBLE way to order a society of intelligent beings-

in the future people with conservative views will be correctly diagnosed as suffering from forms of sociopathic neuroses [and treated]- it is nothing more than dangerous psychosocial dysfunction The question was why are universities dominated by the left. If being a university professor is your definition of "smart people" well, ok, but I see it diferently: for a typical university professor (and a student at a university), reality exists only on paper and in your mind. Heck, parents tell their kids all the time 'just wait until you get to the real world.' A university is not the real world and a lot of what goes on at universities, while it sounds good, does not reflect how things should or even can work in the real world.

So quite simply, my opinion/perception is that conservativism is about realism while liberalism is about idealism. Universities are liberal because not being part of "the real world" means they have the luxury of being idealistic without the burden of being realistic.

You can even dissect individual colleges and see where students/professors fall: engineers are generally conservative while liberal arts majors are generally liberal. Why? Because an engineer is concerned with what works while an english major is concerned with what sounds good. Reality for an engineer is a building that needs to not collapse, while reality for an english major is words on a page: literature - art - aesthetics. That sounds nice, but it isn't reality. Its easy to say something works, especially when you have no chance of ever being in a situation where you need to make it work.

Just a quick tangent, my biggest complaint about typical college kids is just this problem: they don't live in the "real world" and when the real world hits, they aren't ready for it. They take their liberal arts degree and use it the only way they can - working a mindless office job - and spend their lives complaining about how the world should work instead of actually preparing themselves to succeed by doing what does work. But hey - taking english or business leaves a lot of free time to smoke pot. the only way to run a society is an Oligarchy of Intelligencia Did you happen to see the Simpsons' episode where they tried that...? In any case, I'm sure you can come to that conclusion logically (after all, Aristotle figured out all of science through logic alone [/irony]), but that doesn't mean it will or can work in reality.

[russ_watters]

The web page referenced in the post was completely wacko. Sure, I'll readily admit that there's a liberal majority in colleges...but that doesn't make them commie pinkos as the author of that article suggests. It continues to astound me that right-wingers still think that liberals/lefties are automatically pinkos. They have absolutely no idea of the people they disagree with actually think. They have these myopic, propoganda-induced, binary views of the world and its people. Aren't you just flipping the mirror around? You're pigeonholing conservatives by alleging that as a group they pigeonhole liberals. In reality, neither liberals, nor conservatives fit into their nice, neat boxes that the oposite side puts them in.

[aeroegnr]

No, Gokul43201 increasing the voting age would just be treating the symptom of the greater problem- the extension of childhood into the early twenties.

[Gokul43201]

Okay.

Also, if you can be taxed at 18, you'd better have the right to vote at that age. Besides this and the draft eligibility age, were there other reasons for lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 ? And what were the main criticisms against it ?

[HazZy]

You can even dissect individual colleges and see where students/professors fall: engineers are generally conservative while liberal arts majors are generally liberal. Why? Because an engineer is concerned with what works while an english major is concerned with what sounds good. Reality for an engineer is a building that needs to not collapse, while reality for an english major is words on a page: literature - art - aesthetics. That sounds nice, but it isn't reality. Its easy to say something works, especially when you have no chance of ever being in a situation where you need to make it work.i agree 100%. i've been taking mainly scientific classes for the last 3 years and was surprised at how conservative both the students and the teachers were, as i had always heard about how liberal colleges are. now this year i took a bunch of social science classes and i'm bombarded with liberal ideology every day! however most of it is just outspoken mindless drivel, even from professors, some of their comments just make me chuckle to myself...

[aeroegnr]

Well the 26th amendment seems to have been ratified in 1971, so I would think the main reason for lowering the voting age was because of the drafting issue. I am not too familiar with this issue, but that seems to be the case.

I have no problem with a lowered voting age though, my problem resides with the monopoly the federal government has on education. And both political parties are equal in blame, and currently both main candidates will just do more harm.

[gravenewworld]

Blah Blah blah blah, I always hear the same BS from you conservatives all the time. "Damn kids don't know what the real world is. You shouldn't be allowed to vote." I have worked a full time job since I have been 15 every summer, and work part time during the school year. This semester alone I have 21 credits on top of working 20 hours a week. In any given week with homework and regular work combined, I work easily over 100 hrs. I only sleep about 4 hours every night. Yes please bring on the real world so I will only have to work 40 hours per week. I will love it. Yes lets not give 18-21 year olds the right to vote because they don't know anything. The only thing they are good for is picking up a gun and dying defending this nation in war. If your too old to be drafted, what the hell gives you the right to tell the youth who are of draft age that we should not be given the right to vote? Fine, you can take away my vote, just don't exepct me to serve in the military when this country needs the youth to protect it during war time. I'm so sick of bitter old people's age discrimination. And don't use the "Well I pay my taxes" BS excuse. I have been paying taxes since I was 15.

[BobG]

Blah Blah blah blah, I always hear the same BS from you conservatives all the time. "Damn kids don't know what the real world is. You shouldn't be allowed to vote." I have worked a full time job since I have been 15 every summer, and work part time during the school year. This semester alone I have 21 credits on top of working 20 hours a week. In any given week with homework and regular work combined, I work easily over 100 hrs. I only sleep about 4 hours every night. Yes please bring on the real world so I will only have to work 40 hours per week. I will love it. Yes lets not give 18-21 year olds the right to vote because they don't know anything. The only thing they are good for is picking up a gun and dying defending this nation in war. If your too old to be drafted, what the hell gives you the right to tell the youth who are of draft age that we should not be given the right to vote? Fine, you can take away my vote, just don't exepct me to serve in the military when this country needs the youth to protect it during war time. I'm so sick of bitter old people's age discrimination. And don't use the "Well I pay my taxes" BS excuse. I have been paying taxes since I was 15.

I like this thread. A "Don't trust anyone under 25" viewpoint, a "I've worked my butt off harder than you pansified sissies have ever worked" viewpoint, plus, best of all, the Simpson's used as experimental evidence (Russ, I'm shocked! :eek: ).

Did you happen to see the Simpsons' episode where they tried that...?

Well, back in my day, Abby Hoffman said "Don't trust anyone over 30." (Don't trust him. He's over 50, now, maybe even over 60).

And, as how hard you've got it working your way through college, back in my day, I had to walk all the way over to the TV to change the channel, EVEN IN WINTER! (Thank god I had snowshoes)

Of course, back in my day, we didn't have days. God hadn't separated the heavens, yet.

No, when you really look at it, your 18-25 year olds may be more idealistic and liberal, but they're not any more likely to make dumb votes (completely uninformed votes) than anyone else. (and maybe even more capable of handling butterfly ballots than some).

[cragwolf]

No, Gokul43201 increasing the voting age would just be treating the symptom of the greater problem- the extension of childhood into the early twenties.

This is a problem? I say, let's extend the best years of our lives. :biggrin:

And bravo, gravenewworld: a perspective from the "real world" (actually, a silly phrase) unclouded by dogma. A breath of fresh air in this thread.

And this quote -- "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." -- wins the award for the most stupid quote in the history of the world.

[Gokul43201]

Wow...I'm just asking questions here. I never expressed a "don't trust anyone under 25" point of view. I was just trying to figure out whether the minimum voting age was established on the basis of capability to comprehend politics or other issues like draft eligibility and taxation without representation.

Can't we have a little discussion without people blowing their tops ?

And I thought Abby Smith was some lady who was a national level athlete at the age of 3, or some such thing.

[aeroegnr]

If the average lifespan of an american is 75 years, then the conventional 13 years of public schools and then 4 years of university, exiting at 22, effectively keeps people out of society for almost a third of their lives. That's a huge social engineering feat. Not only that, but local people no longer have the influence that they used to on their children's education because of federal involvement. Locking people out of society also puts an enourmous burden on taxpayers, so we work longer hours (to make enough money after taxes) and will thus have less time to interact with our own families and neighbors.

The No Child Left Behind Act has put a huge emphasis on standards and conformity to federal ideals. We cannot say that any set of standards is the absolute best, so why leave one set of standards as the only option?

John Kerry is also planning to keep public high schools open until 6pm. This will also result in a huge amount of money being forcibly spent by taxpayers, with the assumption that some students will then be required to stay at the school. The federal government is slowly increasing its grasp on children until they will no longer be under the supervision of the two adults that brought them into the world.

Also, I have a quote from a book published in 1918 in regard to the state of education in Germany at the time, does this at all sound familiar?

Page 207 of Principles of Secondary Education by Alexander Inglis

“…Through the department for higher schools in the State Ministry, through the provincial boards, and through the examining commissions, the centralized State control of higher schools is practically complete. The result is a system of standardized higher schools throughout the Kingdom of Prussia, manifesting a degree of uniformity in organization, administration, curricula, and all other matters, which is without parallel in any American State. Local school boards play an insignificant role in the control of higher schools. Municipalities may assume the initiative in the establishment of their own schools, but in such case they must conform to the regulations of the provincial boards. They may decide what type of school shall be established, but once established the school must conform in every way to the minimum requirements set. Local authorities may select their own teachers, but the selection must be made from a list of eligibles prepared by the higher authorities. In all cases the action of the local boards is determined by standards set up by higher authorities, and once the school is established little is left for the local authorities except to see that the work of the school fulfills the demands set by State and provincial officers and see that the bills are paid. Their control over the professional side of the work of the school is nil.”

[russ_watters]

Wow...I'm just asking questions here. I never expressed a "don't trust anyone under 25" point of view. I was just trying to figure out whether the minimum voting age was established on the basis of capability to comprehend politics or other issues like draft eligibility and taxation without representation. And though I said youngsters (at 29, I'm old enough to use that word) are more liberal than older people (I'm not there yet), I never said they shouldn't vote. Quite the contrary - as a former enlistee, I think its pretty important that they should be able to vote. And while we're at it - someone who is old enough to die for their country should be allowed to calm his nerves with a shot of Jack too.

On who should be allowed to vote, I think the test we have works fine: people are too apathetic to vote shouldn't vote - and they don't!

But it is entertaining to be pigeonholed...best of all, the Simpson's used as experimental evidence (Russ, I'm shocked! ). All of life's important lessons can be learned from The Simpsons.

[Smurf]

It's called a technocracy. A System where the Intellectuals/Scientists of a society are the ruling class.

[BobG]

Wow...I'm just asking questions here. I never expressed a "don't trust anyone under 25" point of view. I was just trying to figure out whether the minimum voting age was established on the basis of capability to comprehend politics or other issues like draft eligibility and taxation without representation.

Can't we have a little discussion without people blowing their tops ?

And I thought Abby Smith was some lady who was a national level athlete at the age of 3, or some such thing.

I was being facetious in my comments about the posts. But, I was serious that this is an entertaining thread.

Who the heck is Abby Smith? Is she that girl swimmer in Breakfast of Champions?

[Gokul43201]

This group also does some off the wall surveys. Turns out that people who watch late night comedy shows know more about current politics than those who don't watch late night comedy shows. Daily Show viewers are more savvy about current politics than Jay Leno or David Letterman viewers.

Some Daily Show folks are being interviewed on MSNBC right now. I didn't know about this before now, but apparently Bill O' Reilly said some not-especially-flattering words about the Daily Show and its audience.

A Pew poll showed that while 74% of Daily Show viewers were likely to have been through a 4 yr college education, only 28% of O' Reilly viewers share that credential.

[Gokul43201]

I was being facetious in my comments about the posts. But, I was serious that this is an entertaining thread.

Who the heck is Abby Smith? Is she that girl swimmer in Breakfast of Champions?

I'm not sure where the 'Smith' came from...slippy fingers, I guess.

I did mean Abby Hoffman.

[BobG]

Some Daily Show folks are being interviewed on MSNBC right now. I didn't know about this before now, but apparently Bill O' Reilly said some not-especially-flattering words about the Daily Show and its audience.

A Pew poll showed that while 74% of Daily Show viewers were likely to have been through a 4 yr college education, only 28% of O' Reilly viewers share that credential.

Seriously, I was only kidding about that "Don't trust anyone under 25" comment. :cry:

Did you have to post this only 22 minutes after I posted a quote from the O'Reilly show? You must really be upset with me. :frown: Honest, I only watch him when Keith Olberman isn't on the Countdown show.

And, yes, O'Reilly made some comments about the Daily Show, but it's all for good entertainment. I think O'Reilly's supposed to return the favor by visiting Jon Stewart on his home turf.

[Gokul43201]

Seriously, I was only kidding about that "Don't trust anyone under 25" comment. :cry:

Did you have to post this only 22 minutes after I posted a quote from the O'Reilly show? You must really be upset with me. :frown:

Yes, I hate you ! I hate you , you vile slanderer !

Honest, I only watch him when Keith Olberman isn't on the Countdown show.

Oh okay...then you're alright. Can you explain the strange and intricate relationship between Keith and William Hung ? That little thing somehow baffles me...

And, yes, O'Reilly made some comments about the Daily Show, but it's all for good entertainment. I think O'Reilly's supposed to return the favor by visiting Jon Stewart on his home turf.

Jon Stewart was on O' Reilly ?? :eek: How did I miss that ? :cry:

[BobG]

What?! William Hung is proof that left-wing free-sex hippies don't dominate universities - not even UCal-Berkeley. He's a junior in college and still a virgin.

This guy is great! Just watch "She Bangs" (3rd video down).

http://www.williamhung.net/video.cfm

[Smurf]

Theres lots of Juniors in college that are virgins, what does that proove?

[Gokul43201]

He's a junior in college
...and he's Hung, ...

and still a virgin.