Conservative consider liberals are young and naive

[ninja007]

it's comical really; on the O'Reilly show he sends out this guy to talk to liberals in the street. Nobody makes these libs say what they say, and they prove themselves to be every bit the idiotic brainwashed left-wing idiots they are with their asinine comments!! lol!

Sure. Just like the late night TV shows. You interview enough people, you eventually get enough stupid ones to broadcast. Nothing is said about all the intelligent people that were filmed, but never get shown.

they interviewed left-leaning college students. if you dont even have a rudimentary understanding of how our government works and who were the major political figures in our history are; you dont even belong in college

Isn't college a place for learning? Better to argue there is something wrong with the college they are attending or the history courses they are taking.

90% of colleges are liberal. They are for brainwashing young skulls full of mush to vote democrat.

 

[amrchaos]

it's comical really; on the O'Reilly show he sends out this guy to talk to liberals in the street. Nobody makes these libs say what they say, and they prove themselves to be every bit the idiotic brainwashed left-wing idiots they are with their asinine comments!! lol!

Sure. Just like the late night TV shows. You interview enough people, you eventually get enough stupid ones to broadcast. Nothing is said about all the intelligent people that were filmed, but never get shown.

they interviewed left-leaning college students. if you dont even have a rudimentary understanding of how our government works and who were the major political figures in our history are; you dont even belong in college

Isn't college a place for learning? Better to argue there is something wrong with the college they are attending or the history courses they are taking.

90% of colleges are liberal. They are for brainwashing young skulls full of mush to vote democrat.

You mean the liberal arts are teaching liberalism with their arts?

However, if they are brainwashed, why is it that many f these young lost cases slowly turn to conservatism? I guess the brainwash does not take well.

 

[healthmyths]

I 100% agree!
But that's not what this biased statement in the AP US history books being used to "educate" children.
"Manifest Destiny was "built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority,"
rather than "the belief that America had a mission to spread democracy and new technology across the continent,"

This was NOT educating but "editorializing".
This premise that the USA is the bad guy is replete in our liberal educational system.
Even YOU I'm sure use the word "Invasion" of Iraq which was used by the biased MSM to make the USA out the bad guys....yet
under a liberal President Clinton the basis for the "Liberation of Iraq" (NOTE word change???) was a law enacted by Congress (Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) AND signed by Clinton in 1998 the objective:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
What changed from 1998 to "2003 Invasion of Iraq"? Political party change.
So if you can't see how our educational system buttressed by our MSM has completely made the USA the bad guys...(remember there were only
11 out 200,000 soldiers in Iraq caused Abu Ghraib yet people like you destroyed our war successes with the MSM by blowing this so out of proportion!
This is the problem with people like you liberals! You don't comprehend the damages words and images do and how you think you are being so pious and compassion and open minded while at the same time (i.e. Cecil the Lion commands more MSM attention then the crushed baby parts)!

The US did INVADE Iraq. You can't hide the fact the US was the BAD GUY. Just because Saddam was a bad guy too doesn't make the US any better.
However, education should give the facts and then let kids decide.

You say you agree with me, then you go and set out why kids should learn what you think they should learn, rather than making choices for themselves.

First of all I don't believe a damn word you say because YOU don't provide ANY proof of your comments! This is typical of people like you... you just shoot off your mouth damn who gets hurt because you don't really care about people...just ideology!

So When Clinton signed the 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorizing removal of Saddam... THAT Was OK???

The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And of course YOU approved of this starvation of Iraqi children?

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!
Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also what kind of idiot are you who ignores then THIS FACT:
In 2003 AVERAGE IRAQ GDP $600... 2013 10 times that at $6,000 AND you want that to continue? HOW greedy! How lack of compassion!

 

[bedowin62]

YOUNG AND NAIVE

or old and naive

a lib's a lib

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all I don't believe a damn word you say because YOU don't provide ANY proof of your comments! This is typical of people like you... you just shoot off your mouth damn who gets hurt because you don't really care about people...just ideology!

So When Clinton signed the 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorizing removal of Saddam... THAT Was OK???

The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And of course YOU approved of this starvation of Iraqi children?

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
By BARBARA CROSSETTE
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!
Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Also what kind of idiot are you who ignores then THIS FACT:
In 2003 AVERAGE IRAQ GDP $600... 2013 10 times that at $6,000 AND you want that to continue? HOW greedy! How lack of compassion!
View attachment 46491

First of all, I'm someone who backs myself up often. The problem is that most of the time it's met by a blank stare and a "so what?" at the end of it. You back yourself up and you've just wasted your time. However I am willing to back up everything I say to those who are willing to do the same.

You say it's "typical of people like me", well, I don't believe a word of it as you've not backed yourself up, just shooting your mouth off. You don't know me.

Was the Iraq Liberation Act 1998 okay? No the hell it was not okay. You cannot go around telling other countries what to do, and you can't go around making acts calling for the deposition of leaders.
Also, Obama bombing Libya was also not okay.

I approved of the starvation of Iraqi children? Er... no I did not.

Also, the figures you're claiming are just made up.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

I quote your source:

"As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council" This is a HIGH figure. The top figure. A figure they suspect could be the high end of any estimates they have.

Here is an infant survival rate. About 95% of children survived to the age of 5 by the time the war happened. There was a sudden drop off for the next five years going down to about 88%. So, you're looking at about 7% of kids not surviving to the age of 5 when otherwise they might have done so. This levelled off towards the Iraqi war in 2003.

By 1990 Iraq's child mortality was 47 per 1000 live births. Compared to 7 for the UK. It was still pretty high. But it went up to 108 per 1000.

Newsline

"Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998."

So there is here a figure of 500,000, compared to your 2.3 million.

Either way it was a bad situation.

HOWEVER, how many countries in the world are bad?

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In 1990 the child mortality rate in Iraq was 47 per 100,000. Today in the world there are 55 countries with a higher infant mortality rate according to the UN. Five of these are over the 108 it reached at it's worst.

These countries are: Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, DRC and Sierra Leone.

There were rumors of genocide similar to Darfur in Sudan, rebels have been fighting there for a long time, a five year war ended in 2010, there was a failed coup against Deby, who has been in power since 1990.

The US closed down its embassy in the country a long time ago, doesn't do much for the country, doesn't care much for the country. The US doesn't give a damn about the children dying in Chad. Do you? Do you know about what's happening in Chad? Of course you don't It doesn't get in the media much, not much oil under their sand, is there? So no reason to care.

Guinea-Bissau. Leader assassinated in 2009, coup in 2012, no leader has managed to fulfill his 5 year term since the 1970s, they either get killed, suffer a coup or whatever. Does the US care? No it does not.

DRC, been at war for a long time, since 1997. It's all about precious stones and stuff like that. An absolute mess. Does the US care? Not enough to get involved.

Sierra Leone, Civil War from 2002 to 2014. That after a Civil War from 1991 to 2002. Which followed a one party state from 1968 to 1991. Does the US care? No it does not.

The US clearly did not go into Iraq because of the child mortality rate in Iraq. If it cared so much about child mortality then it would have gone into other countries to depose evil dictators in other countries.

Child mortality ROSE in the time after the US intervention there. Did the US care? No, probably not. It didn't go into Afghanistan to reduce the rates infant mortality, that's for sure.

We also haven't spoken about how many people have died because of Bush and Bremer's amazing balls up in "reconstructing" the country and disbanding the Iraqi armed forces and police, increasing unemployment massively (job opportunities in insurgent groups available) and completely destroying the country.

Oh sure, Bush cared about the people about as much as he cared about a stray dog in Manila, what he cared about was what was underneath the soil. Oil. Just as Chad, Sierra Leone etc don't have much, Iraq has a lot.



You're talking Iraqi GDP. You know this is an average, right?

Iraq's main economy is oil.

Unemployment is at 16%. However these stats should be taken with a massive pinch of salt. Other stats might double what is official. This from 2009 "The CPA has referred to a 25% unemployment rate, the Iraqi Ministry of Planning mentioned a 30% unemployment rate, whereas the Iraqi Ministry of Social Affairs claims it to be 48%"

Every oil company is foreign, they make their profits, they take the money out of the country, they employ many foreign workers and so on. So, the $6,000 GDP means what to many of the people?

The US set minimum wage at $72 US dollars a month. Well, that's close to $6,000 a year, oh, wait, no it isn't.

Only 20% of the population is actually in industry, that includes the oil industry which makes over 90% of government revenue.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

Who are actually naive in America? American citizens are... We believe that this conservative-liberal opposition has any positive influence on American democracy.
And we elect them paying money and suffering their laws. We are too fool and naive..

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I started off liberal, then I got a job, entered the real world and grew up....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I started off liberal, then I got a job, entered the real world and grew up....

If that's true, and many wrongly believe so, then you were never really liberal, just young.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I started off liberal, then I got a job, entered the real world and grew up....

If that's true, and many wrongly believe so, then you were never really liberal, just young.

No, I was both... I still hold what some would call classic liberal beliefs. I just got to a point where I realized that all these utopian dreams were just that, dreams. That while one can endeavor to make things "fair", well, things aren't fair, life isn't fair and you're much better off confronting that reality and teaching people to deal with it.

In doing so, they are much better served than teaching them to whine and moan about the unfairness of life rather than learning to succeed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I started off liberal, then I got a job, entered the real world and grew up....

If that's true, and many wrongly believe so, then you were never really liberal, just young.

No, I was both... I still hold what some would call classic liberal beliefs. I just got to a point where I realized that all these utopian dreams were just that, dreams. That while one can endeavor to make t hings "fair", well, t hings aren't fair, life isn't fair amnd you're much better off confronting that reality and teaching people to deal with it.

In doing so, they are much better served than teaching them to whine and moan about the unfairness of life rather than learning to succeed.

Liberals don't do utopias, they're nonsense. As I said, you were never a liberal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I started off liberal, then I got a job, entered the real world and grew up....

If that's true, and many wrongly believe so, then you were never really liberal, just young.

No, I was both... I still hold what some would call classic liberal beliefs. I just got to a point where I realized that all these utopian dreams were just that, dreams. That while one can endeavor to make t hings "fair", well, t hings aren't fair, life isn't fair amnd you're much better off confronting that reality and teaching people to deal with it.

In doing so, they are much better served than teaching them to whine and moan about the unfairness of life rather than learning to succeed.

Liberals don't do utopias, they're nonsense. As I said, you were never a liberal.

Oh, well thanks then for clearing that up. Where would we be without you to tell us what is what?

You sir, are a typical, modern day liberal.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You're no expert. You're a foul-mouthed charlatan.

I think we have a winner here, young no doubt.

Her ad hominem post are childish and without content.

I noticed you failed to discuss this issues, yet you come and attack another member.

So how many forums have you been banned from before your recent arrival??

Millennial Libertarians Are Diverse

Emily Ekins|Sep. 9, 2014 9:10 am

Handsraised

Yesterday, Rachel Burger at Townhall made the case that “Libertarianism isn’t confined to Caucasians anymore.” Data from both the Pew Research Center and the Reason-Rupe poll bolster her thesis, particularly among younger people.

Pew finds that roughly equal numbers of white (12%) and Hispanic Americans (11%) say the term “libertarian” describes them well and know what the word means. However, considerably fewer African-Americans agree—3 percent self-describe as libertarian. Pew also finds young Americans are slightly more likely than older Americans to say libertarianism describes their political views: for instance 12 percent among 18-29 year olds compared to 9 percent among seniors.

The Reason-Rupe poll examines the largest and most diverse cohort—the millennials—finding corroborative data with Pew. The race/ethnicity of self-identified libertarian millennials reflects the national millennial sample as well as those of progressives.

The question was worded somewhat differently by asking millennials to choose only one ideological label of several. In addition to conventional labels like conservative and liberal, Reason-Rupe found 7 percent of millennials identify as libertarian and another 7 percent as progressive.

Reflecting the national millennial sample, among self-identified libertarian millennials, 56 percent identify as white, 21 percent as Hispanic, 14 percent as African-American, and 8 percent as Asian. These data suggest modern libertarianism among the millennial cohort seems to have broad appeal across racial and ethnic backgrounds.

We found similar results for progressives. Among self-identified progressives, 58 percent identified as white, 15 percent as Hispanic, 15 percent as African-American, and 7 percent as Asian.

Millennial Libertarians Are Diverse - Reason-Rupe Surveys Reason.com

 

[Genevieve]

I wonder if most conservatives are old people? Or did they have an experience of being liberal. I don't understand how they've equated being liberal with being young and having no idea what you're talking about. i tend to disagree with them. Liberals are not welcome of late.
But why do we have such prejudices about them?

When I was younger I was a liberal. Life experience made me a conservative. Anyone who gets old and stays liberal is stunted in some way.

Or is it just that people become more selfish in their old age?

When you're young there's a wealth of opportunity, but there's also a chance you'll end up on the pile. So you support equality, you support education for all.
When you're older and you have money and you have a house and mortgage, and you have kids in a good school etc, all you want to do is to keep what you have. You don't want others trying to take it all away from you. So you vote to stop others taking it away from you.

Sad... you see me that way because at 72 years I see more ways to teach people how to be independent yet people like you want to make more people W2T i.e. "womb2tomb" dependent.
For example if anyone wants to help me develop a business that will make over $30 million a year I'm open but it is hard to find people who as you don't think the only way to security is via being a W2T person.

Actually the "myth" of greedy people like you described is again a product of MSM ignorance and bias.
Rather then recognize that teaching people how to be independent is better for society as a whole ignorant MSM continues
the myth about "single payer" about federal government being capable of handling all people's needs. Truly sad that people like
you want to make mindless slaves to the socialist state.

That you judged me and defined me based on one short post tells me that as a 72 year old liberal you stopped learning years ago. Money doesn't make a person wise. Neither does riding in the rut. When your mind opens up enough to listen to someone other than yourself jumping to conclusions, let me know.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

“If a man is not a republican at twenty, it is because he has no heart, and if he is one at forty, it is because he has no brains.” (c) Victor Hugo

I think it explains much about why experienced people who praise conservatism consider liberals are too young to understand the politics.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder if most conservatives are old people? Or did they have an experience of being liberal. I don't understand how they've equated being liberal with being young and having no idea what you're talking about. i tend to disagree with them. Liberals are not welcome of late.
But why do we have such prejudices about them?

When I was younger I was a liberal. Life experience made me a conservative. Anyone who gets old and stays liberal is stunted in some way.

Or is it just that people become more selfish in their old age?

When you're young there's a wealth of opportunity, but there's also a chance you'll end up on the pile. So you support equality, you support education for all.
When you're older and you have money and you have a house and mortgage, and you have kids in a good school etc, all you want to do is to keep what you have. You don't want others trying to take it all away from you. So you vote to stop others taking it away from you.

Sad... you see me that way because at 72 years I see more ways to teach people how to be independent yet people like you want to make more people W2T i.e. "womb2tomb" dependent.
For example if anyone wants to help me develop a business that will make over $30 million a year I'm open but it is hard to find people who as you don't think the only way to security is via being a W2T person.

Actually the "myth" of greedy people like you described is again a product of MSM ignorance and bias.
Rather then recognize that teaching people how to be independent is better for society as a whole ignorant MSM continues
the myth about "single payer" about federal government being capable of handling all people's needs. Truly sad that people like
you want to make mindless slaves to the socialist state.

That you judged me and defined me based on one short post tells me that as a 72 year old liberal you stopped learning years ago. Money doesn't make a person wise. Neither does riding in the rut. When your mind opens up enough to listen to someone other than yourself jumping to conclusions, let me know.

Very true. Conservatism is synonymous with "given up" it seems (most often anyway)

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Very true. Conservatism is synonymous with "given up" it seems (most often anyway)

Democratic / Progressive / Liberals equates to Stupid, Ignorant, brain dead, incapable of thought, racist ..................

Basically just your run of the mill nig ................

 

[candycorn]

Very true. Conservatism is synonymous with "given up" it seems (most often anyway)

Democratic / Progressive / Liberals equates to Stupid, Ignorant, brain dead, incapable of thought, racist ..................

332-206...courtesy of every ethnic minority voting block; if they're stupid, what does that make you, loser??

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
no we consider most left-wing idiots regardless of age to be naive

 

[bedowin62]

Very true. Conservatism is synonymous with "given up" it seems (most often anyway)

Democratic / Progressive / Liberals equates to Stupid, Ignorant, brain dead, incapable of thought, racist ..................

332-206...courtesy of every ethnic minority voting block; if they're stupid, what does that make you, loser??

the only thing dumber is a left-wing idiot braggin about their wins and blaming the "losing" side for all of their own failures for going on SEVEN years

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Very true. Conservatism is synonymous with "given up" it seems (most often anyway)

Democratic / Progressive / Liberals equates to Stupid, Ignorant, brain dead, incapable of thought, racist ..................

332-206...courtesy of every ethnic minority voting block; if they're stupid, what does that make you, loser??

nii gge er you have a habit of throwing those numbers out to bait people into asking what that vote was for.

What it tells me, is you have no point to make other than some meaningless numbers, you think some one actually gives a shit about what they refer to, but yet you make no statement as to representation,

It really doesn't matter it is a means of deflection and avoiding the true topic.

It is what little butt hurt ni gg er bitches do when they have no other course..............

Liberals are young and naive.