Political rant about teachers, [give reasons for your left/rightness] Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

I was told today by one of my professors that my political views "would be changing in about 10 years." Like I'm a malleable, unintelligent, one-track minded teenager...

I realize that over 95% of the United States' youth is wasted on liberals/conservatives without a cause, but I lie in the 5 percent who have reasons, and I'm absolutely sick of my school's teachers.

Over 3/4 of the teachers in this school support Kerry|Edwards, and express their liberal views in their teaching. Hello?

What happened to objective teaching?

And I get looked down on by most of my teachers as a stupid 17 year old conservative shaped by mommy and daddy.

1. My parents strongly advocate the Kerry|Edwards combo.
2. My entire family has voted democrat since as long as I can remember.
3. I have my reasons... which include:

TAXES: Conservatives don't want to abolish the tax system. The income tax is important (although, I've heard the idea of replacing it with a larger sales tax, which would mean that taxes are based on the amount of money you spend and corporate loopholes are eliminated, which is an idea that I think both parties would support. But moving on...). We just don't think taxes should ever climb to the Clintonian levels, which were much too high. Which brings me to--

WELFARE/SOCIAL PROGRAMS: A certain level of welfare and social programs is good. Sometimes people get knocked down and need a little help getting back up. The government should be willing to help teach people how to fish without actually doing the fishing. But there are a heavy number of things that people should be able to do on their own. Providing health care, saving for retirement and the like could all be done individually. If the government takes a smaller portion of your paycheck, and you use the money that they would have taken and put it into health care funds and social-security retirement funds like Bush proposed, you'll have more money and better coverage than you would if you let the government do it. And you make sure that the government doesn't have the option of taking that money and using it for another program and leaving you in the dust.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: People seem to not want to believe me when I say that fiscal responsibility is a conservative position. Just because Bush racked up a deficit doesn't mean we all like deficits. I would love to see the deficit decrease, as would most other conservatives. This is how an issue flips sides -- liberals attack Bush on the deficit, conservatives defend him, and all of a sudden, fiscal responsibility is a liberal issue. So before that happens, I'll say again, I support fiscal responsibility.

GAY MARRIAGE: This is a tricky subject. A good majority of conservatives like the idea of constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Of course, a good number of conservative Democrats support the idea as well. The idea is that marriage is a bond that people enter to support one another and bring about children, and if gay marriage is legalized, then marriage becomes nothing more than an emotional commitment between two people. Then, what stops it from being between three or four or five people? Why even people, anyway? I could marry my dogs if I wanted to. You might think that's ridiculous, but 75 years ago, people thought gay marriage was ridiculous.

Now that I've proven that I understand the conservative logic, I'm going to say that I don't agree with it. If polygamy becomes an issue, we'll tackle it when we get there, and I don't think many people will support marriage between species. I don't have a problem with two men marrying because it doesn't affect me at all. I think its a question that should be left up to the states, but I don't support gay marriage bans.

ABORTION: I'm strongly against abortion. It is the issue that aligned me with the Republican Party several years ago. I'm not going to get into the different angles on why I think abortion is a sick and terrible injustice. I do think the country would benefit if organizations like Planned Parenthood actually supported alternatives to abortion rather than just functioning as an abortion advocate. I think educating people about other options could reduce abortions drastically, but I would support an all-out abortion ban. By "all-out abortion ban" I mean not just partial-birth abortion ban, but banning abortion of all kinds. I support making an exception in the case of the mother's health being jeopordized because I can't imagine letting the doctors sit idly by while childbirth kills my wife/girlfriend, and I don't expect anyone else too, either. Keep in mind, however, that this circumstance constitutes an incredibly small percentage of abortions.

GUN CONTROL: Another issue where I differ somewhat from the conservative positions. I think we need a little gun control here and there. I think background checks are good, waiting periods are good, and the assault-weapons ban is good. I also am a little bit weary of conceal-and-carry laws. I think people who pass background checks should be able to own guns and keep them in their homes for hunting, protection, and whatever else. But I don't like the idea of the guy in the car behind me pulling out a gun because he thinks I cut him off.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: There was a time when affirmative action was needed. That time has passed. I support the right of businesses to practice affirmative action if they choose, because diversity is important in some businesses and in some parts of the nation. But I think affirmative action in college admissions and in scholarship awarding needs to go. I would like to see it replaced with a program of socio-economic affirmative action, where poor people of every race benefit from affirmative action to get themselves out of poverty, and more well-to-do people don't get unfair advantages. That way, poor whites and blacks can go to college, and more affluent minorities aren't given handouts that they don't need.

WAR ON TERROR: National security is the most important issue today. If we aren't a secure nation, all those other issues listed above become moot. Within reason, the government should never vote down a weapons program. Call it counterintuitive if you will, but having some stealth bombers and cruise missles in your arsenal, along with a couple nuclear missles, goes a long in keeping little terrorist states from going at you too hard. I wouldn't support the use of a nuclear bomb under any reasonable circumstance, but I think we should have them. For proof, look no further than the arms race at the end of the Cold War. Reagan kept building, and the USSR couldn't keep up, their economy collapsed, and the Soviet Union fell apart.

I think we should respect the UN up to a point. I think we should try to convince them to help us, as the administration did before the Iraq war. But if we perceive a real threat, we can't wait for the UN to give us permission before defending ourself. Our safety is more important than Europe's view of us.

I think the tragedy in Russia should remind us how real the threat of terror is and how an unprepared nation can face such tragedy. The Bush adminstration has prepared this country in a way no other country has ever been prepared to fight terrorism, and the evidence can be seen in the fact that we haven't been attacked in three years, despite the hatred and determination of foreign terrorists.

I have a pretty good grasp on the stances of most of the people in this forum...I'd just like your reasons why. I'll be interested to see which of you can provide them.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]I was told today by one of my professors that my political views "would be changing in about 10 years."  Like I'm a malleable, unintelligent, one-track minded teenager...[/quote]

It's pretty common atually. Most people change their ideas over time.

[quote]I realize that over 95% of the United States' youth is wasted on liberals/conservatives without a cause, but I lie in the 5 percent who have reasons, and I'm absolutely sick of my school's teachers.[/quote]

The youth are the most likely to vote Third Party according to CNN. This is probably because they are more prone to think long term since they still have their entire life ahead of them.

But if you do not count third party, then young voters (18-29) vote about the same % republican and democrat as everyone else, except for seniors who vote a little more democratic.

[quote]Over 3/4 of the teachers in this school support Kerry|Edwards, and express their liberal views in their teaching.  Hello?

What happened to objective teaching?[/quote]

In social studies, it doesn't exist. You can't achieve complete objectivism because you are studying the science of people. In math or science, however, you can achieve impartiality because things are predictable.

[quote]Conservatives don't want to abolish the tax system. The income tax is important (although, I've heard the idea of replacing it with a larger sales tax, which would mean that taxes are based on the amount of money you spend and corporate loopholes are eliminated, which is an idea that I think both parties would support. But moving on...). We just don't think taxes should ever climb to the Clintonian levels, which were much too high. Which brings me to--[/quote]

The sales tax is a good idea, but there are problems with implementation (cost of changing) and also the sales tax is regressive, so if you establish a sales tax, you'd have to give rebates to low-income people to make it a flat or progressive rate. Under some circumstances, like today, a sales tax makes economic sense. Under other circumstances, however, it does not (a sales tax in 1930 would have crippled an already-weak economy).

[quote]A certain level of welfare and social programs is good. Sometimes people get knocked down and need a little help getting back up. The government should be willing to help teach people how to fish without actually doing the fishing.[/quote]

We have charities for that. The government didn't give out a single penny in welfare aid until 1933 and people got along fine.

[quote]But there are a heavy number of things that people should be able to do on their own. Providing health care, saving for retirement and the like could all be done individually. If the government takes a smaller portion of your paycheck, and you use the money that they would have taken and put it into health care funds and social-security retirement funds like Bush proposed, you'll have more money and better coverage than you would if you let the government do it. And you make sure that the government doesn't have the option of taking that money and using it for another program and leaving you in the dust.[/quote]

Why not make saving for retirement optional to begin with?

[quote]People seem to not want to believe me when I say that fiscal responsibility is a conservative position. Just because Bush racked up a deficit doesn't mean we all like deficits. I would love to see the deficit decrease, as would most other conservatives. This is how an issue flips sides -- liberals attack Bush on the deficit, conservatives defend him, and all of a sudden, fiscal responsibility is a liberal issue. So before that happens, I'll say again, I support fiscal responsibility.[/quote]

All right, but it should be done by cutting spending and not raising taxes.

Fiscal responsibility was a tricky issue. It has to be a specific kind of fiscal responsibility.

It was used by democrat Thomas Jefferson to justify reduced spending.
It was used by republican Benjamin Harrison to justify increasing spending (since tariff revenue was bigger than the budget).
It was used by republican Ronald Reagan to cut taxes.
It was used by democrat Bill Clinton to raise taxes.

[quote]This is a tricky subject. A good majority of conservatives like the idea of constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Of course, a good number of conservative Democrats support the idea as well.[/quote]

Really? Give me their names!

In reality, only the religious nutcase brand of conservatism advocates this. Most mainline conservatives oppose a gay marriage amendment, simply because it will erode the federal-state balance of poewr that is the basis of conservatism in many ways. American Conservative, which is the most true conservative publication there is, has consistently opposed gay marriage, but also a gay marriage amendment. So has the American Constitution Party.

[quote]The idea is that marriage is a bond that people enter to support one another and bring about children, and if gay marriage is legalized, then marriage becomes nothing more than an emotional commitment between two people. Then, what stops it from being between three or four or five people? Why even people, anyway? I could marry my dogs if I wanted to. You might think that's ridiculous, but 75 years ago, people thought gay marriage was ridiculous.[/quote]

The issue isn't marriage; it's federalism.

I do not know of any major conservative publications that support a federal gay marriage amdnement because it would go against everything the country was founded on.

Many conservatives, however, support state-based initiatives to ban gay marriage.

[quote]WAR ON TERROR: National security is the most important issue today. If we aren't a secure nation, all those other issues listed above become moot.[/quote]

Nope. In the last 30 years, more Americans have been killed by lightning than terrorism. We've wasted much more money and liberty on anti-terrorism than terrorism ever destroyed. The damage that terrorism causes is through FEAR and TERROR. If we defend our borders, attack their bases, but otherwise just ignore them, then that will minimize the damages done.

[quote] Within reason, the government should never vote down a weapons program. Call it counterintuitive if you will, but having some stealth bombers and cruise missles in your arsenal, along with a couple nuclear missles, goes a long in keeping little terrorist states from going at you too hard.[/quote]

How will nuclear missiles deter al-qaeda?

[quote] I wouldn't support the use of a nuclear bomb under any reasonable circumstance, but I think we should have them. For proof, look no further than the arms race at the end of the Cold War. Reagan kept building, and the USSR couldn't keep up, their economy collapsed, and the Soviet Union fell apart.[/quote]

Reagan built missiles in Western Europe, and then negotiated with the Soviets so that the Soviets would pull their weaposn out of Eastern Europe if we pulled ours out of Western Europe.

Reagan built up a strong military in order to achieve a realist balance of power, not to go after neoconservative delusions like Bush is.

Bush's foreign policy mirrors the old Soviet policy, not Reagan's. You see, what we call Neoconservatism today, the idea that a country is safer when it uses military force to promote its ideals in other countries, was originated by Leon Trotsky, who was Lenin's second in command. Within years of the revolution, the Soviet Union had invaded Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and others under the auspices of "liberating" them from their tyrannical regimes -- and imposing a military occupation, much like we are doing in Iraq. The Soviet Union ultimately collapsed in large part because its economy and manpower pool began to dwindle as time went on. The Soviet Union's last neoconservative misadventure took place, ironically, in Afghanistan, where they were soundly beaten by the same terrorist militias that we are fighting against.

After a while -- many years, decades perhaps -- we must either abandon this foreign policy or go the way of the Soviets.

To our credit, we do have a steeper learning curve than the Soviets. Our last adventure at neoconservatism was when we annexed the Phillippines at the end of the Spanish-American War.

After ten thousand Americans and six hundred thousand Pinays were killed in a bloody civil war, we decided it wasn't worth it. Between 1899 and 2003, we have not invaded a single nation because of their political beliefs being different from ours. And that is why, at the end of hte Cold War, we were respected world leaders, while the Soviets were seen as greedy occupiers and fanatical ideologues.

[quote]I think we should respect the UN up to a point. I think we should try to convince them to help us, as the administration did before the Iraq war. But if we perceive a real threat, we can't wait for the UN to give us permission before defending ourself. Our safety is more important than Europe's view of us.[/quote]

But by going into Iraq, we took a non-threat and made it into a threat. The war jeopardized the safety of our troops, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars for no real reason. As even Bush admits today, Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat.

[quote]I think the tragedy in Russia should remind us how real the threat of terror is and how an unprepared nation can face such tragedy.[/quote]

Russia has been trying to subjugate teh Chechneys for so long, of course they will fight back.

The school tragedy happened in Beslan, right near teh Chechneyan border.

As far as I know, we are not trying to invade Mexico or Canada. If we did, however, then we might haev a terrorist crisis there.

Terrorists are people who are fighting for independence. Simply put, we stop messing with them, they stop messing with us. Terrorists attacked the US Marine base in beirut, killing 260 marines in 1981.

What did President Reagan do? He ordered every last US marine to leave the Middle East. He was criticized by some fellow conservatives for pulling out.

But we did not suffer another terrorist attack for another twelve years.

All but one of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia -- and all of our middle eastern troops were based there. Coincidence? I think not.

Don't mess with them, they won't mess with us.

[quote]The Bush adminstration has prepared this country in a way no other country has ever been prepared to fight terrorism, and the evidence can be seen in the fact that we haven't been attacked in three years, despite the hatred and determination of foreign terrorists.[/quote]

That's right, because they've already achieved their goal.

Terroists don't want to kill, they want to terrorize. And I think that bin Laden has achieved his goal ... we've been so terrorized that we spent a quarter TRILLION dollars, that could have better been spent furthering the American people.

We have passed laws that, in another age, would have never been able to pass.

Moreove,r a three year streak is nothing. After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, Clinton did basically nothing -- and we had a 5 year streak of no terrorism.

Reagan pulled our troops OUT of the Mid East after a terrrosit attack -- and we had 13 years of no terrorism, until Bush I sent our tropps back in.