American Youths

[brneyedgrl80]

I think that not enough credit is given to teenagers and young adults. Many of them are quite aware of things going on around them and how they feel towards current situations. The majority of responses on this thread are talking about the future generation as if they are mindless care only about what's the latest video out on TRL.

When I went to high school, which wasn't too long ago, we were very active. Even going so far as to having the whole school protest against some of the rules that they were trying to apply. And we weren't the only high school that did so. Maybe San Diego teenagers are more aware than other students in the country? I don't think so.

Granted a lot of teenagers/young adults are influenced by peers, parents and tv, but aren't adults? Isn't conformity the natural way for most people? Everyone is influenced by peers, parents and tv unless you have no friends, parents or tv.

I for one, and a lot of my peers, went on many protests and had written many letters in high school speaking out against what we felt was wrong.

Do not undermine the youth of America, that is a huge mistake.

And as for:

Doctorow's Malpractice

Let's not forget about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/27/cheney.westminster.ap/
And the disappoint that was felt or this:
http://www.rense.com/general25/chens.htm
When students actually questioned and spoke out.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

In some instances, today's liberals refuse to acknowledge the wishes of the majority, but instead circumvent the will of the people with judicial activism.

It's funny how the majority of this country are considered poor with the middle class shrinking and all. I guess a good generalization would be that the majority of America are liberals. And we all know what liberals are made out of:

It is comprised of poor people who want a progressive tax to implement income redistribution

I'm happy to know that I'm surrounded by so many liberals...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
Again, I find the biggest problem with forums is the excessive generalizations that take place. One cannot call all liberals communists anymore than one can call all conservatives fascist, it just happens that the nation is undergoing a swing toward conservatism (maybe it will continue, maybe not) as a reaction to a surge in the 'youthful liberalism' of this and previous young generations. The important thing, and that which must be maintained is the balance in American politics. The young (typically more idealistic and less realistic) serve as a reminder to society. They keep us young, so to speak. The older generations then check the younger ones, maintaining the necessary order in society. It is much the same way with liberals and conservatives. Let's put ourselves above name calling and go back to the roots of these words. Quite simply, liberalism is a desire for or acceptance of change, and conservatism is a desire for or acceptance of maintaining the status quo. In essence, liberals institute new policies and conservatives keep the 'good ones' going. These balances are what make a republic, and we cannot exist without them. It's easy to put one's self in either a 'left' or 'right' camp and point a finger at the other side, but when it's all said and done both sides need each other, and each side serves an important function.

Your definitions of liberalism and conservatism are simplistic and wrong. Conservatism is not simply "maintaining the status quo". Liberals who have taken over the education system and vast portions of government love the status quo. Labels are effective though, of course, not everyone believes every plank in the party platform. Sweeping generalizations can be made, and should be.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The voting age should be raised to 35. Considering that our society has created a falsely extended adolescence, deeming someone wise at eighteen is a joke. Oh wait, soldiers who fight and die for our country can vote, regardless of age. That's the way it should be.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

If the voting age is moved to 35 then so should the age to join the military.

If you can teach a teenager/young adult to shoot a gun and new rules/laws/terms then you can teach a teenager/young adult about world affairs and national affairs.

 

[freeandfun1]

Did you know that 17 year olds can join the military and can't vote? What about the drinking age then? If one can die at 17, why can't he drink at 17? I joined when I was 17.

I wouldn't advocate raising the voting age to 35 but as you see, there are many things one cannot do once they are considered old enough to vote and there are many things one can do while not old enough to vote....

Damn, does that make sense?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
If the voting age is moved to 35 then so should the age to join the military.

If you can teach a teenager/young adult to shoot a gun and new rules/laws/terms then you can teach a teenager/young adult about world affairs and national affairs.

I said soldiers could vote regarldess of age. Did you read my whole post?

Do you remember when we used to sing?

 

[JROTCcadet]

Once again, I have to say that one cannot change the definition of liberal and conservative because of time. You may move the subjects of analysis, but not the catagories. Perhaps Kennedy would be considered a conservative by TODAY'S STANDARDS because he is not around today. By removing a piece of history and evaluating it by today's standards, you compromise the entire process of historical analysis. Let the catagorical definitions of liberal and conservative remain constant and judge individual people and ideas based upon those constant ideas. You can't change constants in the middle of an experiment, and you can't change catagorical definitions at any random point in history. The problem is egocentricity. We have a tendancy to look at things in the past as 'over and done with' as if we are at the end of history. Liberals today ARE NOT wackos that hate Bush just because he's republican and love Kerry just because he's a democrat. If there's one thing I can get across to people on this forum, it's this: sweeping generalizations help when classifying taxinomic structure, not when discussing people. A person is not defined by their political viewpoint anymore than they are defined by the colour of their eyes. Remember, revolutionary Americans where the minority in the 18th century, so just because an idea isn't popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be given consideration and written off as 'bad'. If everyone opened up just once in a while and realized that both political parties in this country have good policies, we'd be in a lot better place. Partisan politics helps no one but our enemies.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
Once again, I have to say that one cannot change the definition of liberal and conservative because of time. You may move the subjects of analysis, but not the catagories. Perhaps Kennedy would be considered a conservative by TODAY'S STANDARDS because he is not around today. By removing a piece of history and evaluating it by today's standards, you compromise the entire process of historical analysis. Let the catagorical definitions of liberal and conservative remain constant and judge individual people and ideas based upon those constant ideas. You can't change constants in the middle of an experiment, and you can't change catagorical definitions at any random point in history. The problem is egocentricity. We have a tendancy to look at things in the past as 'over and done with' as if we are at the end of history. Liberals today ARE NOT wackos that hate Bush just because he's republican and love Kerry just because he's a democrat. If there's one thing I can get across to people on this forum, it's this: sweeping generalizations help when classifying taxinomic structure, not when discussing people. A person is not defined by their political viewpoint anymore than t hey are defined by the colour of their eyes. Remember, revolutionary Americans where the minority in the 18th century, so just because an idea isn't popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be given consideration and written off as 'bad'. If everyone opened up just once in a while and realized that both political parties in this country have good policies, we'd be in a lot better place. Partisan politics helps no one but our enemies.

The terms are useful. The parties HAVE changed. Liberalism should be written off as 'bad'. collectivist thinking has led to the most horrible atrocities known to man.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
Once again, I have to say that one cannot change the definition of liberal and conservative because of time.

Once again? When was the first time?

By removing a piece of history and evaluating it by today's standards, you compromise the entire process of historical analysis.

Not if the point is to explain how the definitions have changed. My point was yesterday's liberal is not today's liberal. Yesterday's liberal is what you described.

Let the catagorical definitions of liberal and conservative remain constant

They don't and they haven't.

Liberals today ARE NOT wackos that hate Bush just because he's republican and love Kerry just because he's a democrat.

Every single one of them is not. But what if the majority are?

sweeping generalizations help when classifying taxinomic structure, not when discussing people.

Completely wrong.

A person is not defined by their political viewpoint anymore than they are defined by the colour of their eyes.

Completely wrong. If you see no difference between someone's political ideology, a dominant facet of their personality, and the colour of their eyes, and that trait is common among the youth you know, then it is no surprise there exists and abundance of political apathy.

Political ideology is monumentally important.

Remember, revolutionary Americans where the minority in the 18th century, so just because an idea isn't popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be given consideration and written off as 'bad'.

Who said it should be?

If everyone opened up just once in a while and realized that both political parties in this country have good policies, we'd be in a lot better place.

Name a good policy of the Democratic party.

Partisan politics helps no one but our enemies.

This country is all about partisan politics.

 

[Semper Fi]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I said soldiers could vote regarldess of age. Did you read my whole post?

Do you remember when we used to sing?

Only granting soldiers the right to vote a certain age would differentiate them, making them seemingly superior to the common citizen. If more of such rights were granted, however, the lifestyle of the average soldier would skyrocket, making civilians rush to the recruiters ASAP. So It may not be such a bad idea after all.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
Once again, I have to say that one cannot change the definition of liberal and conservative because of time.

Well, they have changed, and it's too late for you to do anything about it. Get over it.

Liberals today ARE NOT wackos that hate Bush just because he's republican and love Kerry just because he's a democrat.

You would be surprised how many people are out there who admit themselves to hating Bush and wanting Kerry in the White House just because he's the Democratic nominne. It's called the Anybody But Bush crowd, and you can find them all over the Yahoo boards.

A person is not defined by their political viewpoint anymore than they are defined by the colour of their eyes.

When discussing politics, and more specifically, voting tendencies, people are necessarily defined by political viewpoints.

Partisan politics helps no one but our enemies.

Wrong. Partisan politics allow people of simliar political thought elect people with their values, as so to effect the laws of their country/state/county/city in a way that they fell would be positive. But you would know that if you would opened your eyes and looked at the world around you.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I said soldiers could vote regarldess of age. Did you read my whole post?

Do you remember when we used to sing?

Yes I did, and the reply I posted was a response to yours, did you read mine?
It was a rebuttal as to why give special considerations to teenagers who join the military as far as voting when any other teenager who does not join the military would have to wait to vote. The teenager who joined the military is no more capable of making a voting decision than one who is not in the military.

Again, anyone that can be taught to shoot a gun, be taught new terminology, etc... then they can be taught about current, foreign and national issues to make a fair judgement to vote.

BTW, sorry it took me so long to write back

 

[JROTCcadet]

Consider this my last post on this forum, no one here listens, they simply talk (or should I say yell). Whining is all that I hear from both sides here, left and right, while everyone convieniently ignores the fact that if liberalism or conservatism is written off as 'bad', you establish a one party rule. Republics are founded from debate and competition, they exist to allow the majority to rule while protecting the minority: far too many of the people here are self-centered, close-minded, and simply ignorant. I'll continue to write elsewhere, should I find a place where individuals on both sides of the fence realize that both sides are important and have merit, but I'm done here. What more can I say than, you people make me sick. I don't mind if we disagree on abortion, gun control, gay marriages, etc....I do mind when you won't realize that both sides have to exist for proper debate to take place. You can feel that everything a Democrat or a Republican says is wrong, so long as you respect their purpose in providing an alternative solution for consideration. Toqueville's a good read, tyranny of the majority and all that....but it seems to me that everyone here wants to feel oppressed so that they can complain about their lot in life. Wake up. You're not the only person here, and other's ideas count. If a Republic is to be successful, you must have moderation. Neither liberalism nor conservatism can rule a nation by itself. Thus, I've never asked any of you to agree with me on particular policy, I've merely wanted you to acknowledge that my opinion (right or wrong) should be different than others, and that neither liberals nor conservatives can be considered bad. But to avoid being melodramatic, I know the nation will progess as usual. A few that refuse to consider the delicate balance of politics will be countered with a few that realize its importance and vice versa. As a final request, I just ask everyone that reads this to pick some piece of legislation with which they know they disagree, read it without bias, and then go about your business. Just acknowledge that the balance exists for a reason, and that fanatics in both directions fail in the end: the political spectrum isn't a line, it's a tear drop.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Natural selection at its finest. The unfit die.

More like "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" Z.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
while everyone convieniently ignores the fact that if liberalism or conservatism is written off as 'bad', you establish a one party rule.

Maybe you should read.

Me
But you are right, both sides need each other.

JROTCcadet
Consider this my last post on this forum

Bye.

 

[freeandfun1]

ME

LOL :rotflmao:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Damn, we punked him out pretty hard. I love this place.

 

[OCA]

Damn I just got into this thread and after only 21 posts this guy is taking the bitch way out. What a loser!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80

Again, anyone that can be taught to shoot a gun, be taught new terminology, etc... then they can be taught about current, foreign and national issues to make a fair judgement to vote.

This may not be true. Maybe theoretically they could be, but no one in our society is doing it. The libs who control education only teach two classes: More Funding 101 and Bush Sucks 101.