# poitical tendencies.........



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

Anyone worried that we may be raising a generation of very liberal slanted kids? Mabeye its just cause I'm a good old boy from ND but I've been to Madision WI and Minneapolis etc and it just seems the "Liberal" crowd has completely taken over. Mabeye I'm not seeing it all, But it seems every young person at a college campus anymore or out in public could just as well have a "elect Gore" sticker tatooed across their forehead. (along with a Granola bar in their back pocket) Bobm...has it always been this way? young adults acting "out' and then coming to their senses later in life? I figured you might have an opinion on this one. Does every generation act like this or is it worse now than in say the 70's........???


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its always been this way I went to UW-Madison 30 some years ago and it was like that. Young kids just have to go thru a period of idealism. Actually I think there is some hope that alternate sources of info like the internet, cable TV and talk radio counter the mainstream left wing network news media. All we can do is encourage them to learn the truth! Even I was a liberal back then, Sorta, even had long hair :lol: maybe having lots of hair makes you gullible
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I don't want this to sound inflammatory, but I really need to know something.

What is it about liberalism that you guys really despise? Is it the fact that young people are tolerant of different cultures and viewpoints? Is it that people are not satisfied with the current state of the world and want to change things for the better? Is it the fact that young people have the audacity to question their government leaders for their actions or inactions? Is it that young people are not satisfied with the information that get from standard media outlets, so they look elsewhere for the truth? Is it the fact that people freely express their opinions?

Really, isn't this ideal behavior?


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

It was stated once "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, If you are not a conservative when you age, you have no brain" I can't remember who said that, but it pretty much sums up the fact that peoples ideals change through life.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well Big Daddy I couldn't say it any Better than Muzzy did, great comment! 
Thanks Muzzy :beer:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

OK, so let's be honest. Do people become conservative as they age because they become cynical and give up trying to change things? Is it because people stop taking risks and simply conform? Is it because people start making some money and want to keep it?

Regardless of whether we have conservative economic views, I still don't see why we wouldn't support liberal social views. Don't we want people to be tolerant of other cultures and viewpoints?

Also, I hate to say it, but many of the opinions on these boards about challenging the government about its handling of our natural resources could be viewed as LIBERAL. In fact, Bobm, your continued pushing for more public (e.g. government-owned) hunting land is a liberal idea. Does that make it bad? Heck no.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

People get more realistic as they age not cynical, as for the government land everyone has at least one skeleton in the closet! thats mine :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Point taken, Bobm. I just don't think that we should discourage anybody (young or old) from freely expressing themselves or their views. I also can't understand why folks automatically label folks as "liberal" if they want to change things. Based on the large number of folks on this board that want to change things, I'd classify us all as liberal, you included.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Winston Churchill

Churchill also has some great ones on democracy...

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Colleges are definitely a pretty liberal environment for the most part but I doubt that's anything new. I think the real problem with kids today is that they never experience outside an urban setting.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

Someone will undoubtedly respond to this thread that Winston Churchill was the one who made the famous quote. He's often credited with saying, "If you are not a liberal at the age of 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at the age of 40, you have no head."

In fact, Churchill never once uttered the words to which he is often attributed. Instead, the quotation originated with mid-nineteenth century French Premier and historian François Guizot: "To be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head." Variations on this theme were later attributed to Disraeli, Shaw, Churchill, and Bertrand Russell--though a search of Churchill's quotations in Bartlett revealed no such reference.

This quotation is also sometimes attributed to Georges Clemenceau, France's prime minister from 1907-10. His leadership was marked by his hostility towards socialists and trade unions. The story goes like this: Clemenceau expressed the following to a visitor who inquired about his son being a communist. "If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then."

This quotation is frequently but mistakenly attributed to Churchill. At any rate, it is unlikely that Churchill would subscribe to this philosophy. He was a soldier at 20 and a Conservative member of Parliament at 25. A couple of years later he switched to the Liberal Party (which was not liberal in the modern sense), and later went back to the Conservatives.

Of course, neither of the terms liberal or conservative can be applied to modern U.S. Democratic and Republican parties. The Democratic Party has moved to the right in order to appeal to moderates (the Democratic Party should now be considered conservative) while the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Christian Coalition, neoconservative think-tanks and huge multi-national corporations and should be labeled appropriately as the "Right-Wing Fascist Directly Connected to God Screw You and the Rest of the World While We Plunder Earth's Natural Resources Attack Nations that Don't Threaten Us Since We Can't Attack Our Friends Who Really Were Behind 9-11 (Saudi Arabia) and Give All Your Money to the Wealthy Elite So They Can Stow It Away in Grand Cayman Accounts Party."


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hey Mt pheasant you don't feel very strongly about that do you :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I bet you're really Hillary Clinton, come on honey you can come clean, Hillary you're among open minded friends, let all that frustration go, it will be all better :lol:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

From what I hear Madison WI takes their liberalism to the extremes....so I'm not sure that can represent the average city.

My .02


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

After Bush & Rush who is there to look up to in the Republican party ???

I have a feeling the extremes on both sides have lost all respect - Then you get these wishey washey ones in the middle that will swing with the breeze - They all SUCK !!!

The only hope may be the next terrorist attack might take out about 90% of them :wink: Even saying that I most likely will get a visit from that new gov agency that wants to snoop into everyone business :roll: :******:

It is sad that a Centrist party of just good honest people that want to do the right things can't come to the top -- Why is that ??? None left :huh:


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks, BigDaddy for some good common sense questions about liberal notions. They were good.

I must have raised my 22 year old son poorly. The young man has grown up to be a conservative. His mother and I just shake our heads. It must be that fraternity house that he has been living in for the last four years at the University of Minnesota. His tuition and room and board have been partially paid for by his bus driving, union member grandfather who was also a democrat. The union guy's grandson is a conservative. What a trader. :huh:


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

Fetch, you truly show your lack of intellect when you state that you 'Look up to" George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh.
A mental neanderthal puppet and a druggy, that's who I want as role models.

Anyone who trusts in the quotes of a bunch of frenchmen needs a screw or two tightened.

Nobody can truly be totally liberal or totally conservative, it goes against the human reflex of self-preservation.
Wether it is yuppie college freaks thinking that what they think really matters or political fatcats who can't get a piece cause they are too fat and busy counting their money, either way both groups will exhibit behaviors of both liberalism and conservatism.

And by the way, what the heck does this have to do with Hunting and or Fishing.

P.S.
I would like to dedicate this thread to George W. Bush and Gov. Hoeven as I hum the melody of "Happy Trails To You" as both will be leaving office come this November, Bye bye.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Perry as a good conservative your son will not leave you to the mercy of the crumbling social security program as you age, I'm sure he will make you proud by being one of the many people in this country that really want to actaully fix the things that are wrong with our system, rather than preserve them for their political benefit. 
Government has no incentive to actually solve problems because if they get solved we don't need them(government programs) anymore. Goverment by definition must have dependent people so the design programs to create them and then use these programs to stay in power.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Bobm, this thread started as on observation about the "liberal"-looking students on college campuses. I raised some questions earlier in this thread that you still haven't answered.

You equate liberalism to support for big government. I equate liberalism to tolerance for diversity, social consciousness, and the desire to change things for the better.

Again, I ask, what about my definition of "liberal" do you not support? Isn't this the type of young person that we should want to have?


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Coot - your the one once again showing your lack of the forementioned :roll:

I just asked who is there ??? is Powell a true Rep. ??? Rice is OK but not enough back ground or expirence (But look at GW ) :roll:

I would rather have a good delegator - that picks good people, than a dictator :-? or know it all :roll: or Old Fart 

Muzzy I agree with that old saying - But I do believe it shifts back again depending on your income bracket & heart (& weather you truely learned anything in life) :wink: & thank goodness it has all these years (went back & forth) maybe thats why this expirment has worked ??? Just like that other old saying, Our Political System Sucks but is better than any other in the world :wink:

Coot - I'm a equal opportunity basher of politics & politicians - they all STINK up everything :******:


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

Bigdaddy: Tolerant of other cultures? Why can't they be tolerant of my culture? If two gays want to live together I can turn a blind eye. If after forty years, one partner dies, the other should be entitled to survivors benefits. Thats tolerant on my part. Now, whats with the in-your-face, I'm going to ram it down your throat, and make you sh*t it out the other end attitude (this goes for many other activist views eg. animal-rights, feminist, environmentalist) about gays needing to infringe upon the sanctity of marriage. Can't they tolerate straights having a culture? As of right now, I'm not in support of a Constitutional ammendment defining marriage, but we could be left with no other option. If activist judges are going to start making laws instead of interperting them as they should, it is the only way to override their decisions.

I don't like to look at it as discrimination either. A gay man has just as much right as a straight man to get married. They just have to find a woman as their partner. Where does the line get drawn? If you open marriage up to gays based on discrimination, there is a plethora of situations I don't want to encounter: a father from marrying his daughter, a man marrying multiple women, or a hunter marrying his best hunting dog etc...

Perry, it goes to show that there is a shimmer of hope. Just because your born a democrat, you have to remain a democrat? I feel their are many others with this syndrome. His tution is also being subsidized by many hard working MN's paying taxes, not all of who are democrats.

Fetch, I do believe the Dept. of Homeland Security will be after you.  
On another note, we must separate Bush and Rush. Rush is just a radio talk show host, not a politician (Both of which can be full of hot air). He will at least come out and tell you that his point of view is coming from a conservative slant. He doesn't hide behind a facade and say its mainstream.
As for Bush, he has his strong points and weak points, as all politicians do. But, in my opinion, he has the highest respect for his office position. He is not President for the power trip or to build his ego and show off to his friends as the previous administration seemed to treat it. He does what he feels is best for the country. I will take a principled leader any day over a populist leader.

Sorry about this not pertaining to the outdoors at all. :eyeroll: Just think what could be accomplished if we stuck to that.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Big Daddy you are correct your definition of liberalism is the classic one and one I agree with in principle. My complaint is with the so called "liberals" who hijacked the Democratic party and turned it into a bunch of leftists extremeists for political gain. Tolerance of diversity is ok as long as your not talking about diversity for the sake of diversity, see these things get twisted until they don't make sense, for example keeping better qualified students of one race out of a university because of a desire to allow diversity by lowering the standards for another race. I may have not worded that the best but I'm pretty sure you get my drift. 
If you read my arguments about how we handle the drug issues in this country in the libertarian thread you will see I'm have a socially concious side. Your correct, true liberalism would lead to less goverment involvement in our lives which would be great. The problem is the so called "liberals" which are really a bunch of elitists that call themselves liberal and think they know whats better for us than we do( and use the power of government to force us to do what they want), think they should take our money and spend it for what they thinks is best for the country instead of letting us spend it the way we want to. 
Taking a fresh look at problems is really the best way to solve them. A desire to change things for the better is great but change just for the sake of change or for politically correct ill concieved reasons is what gets my goat, and it happens all to often nowadays.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Politics is hunting rights and all the other issues about access and how to set reasonable laws for all concerned. Political discussion sharpens the mind increases the ability to debate issues and allows people to develop the ability to look at problems from your adversaries viewpoint. All these things will help you guys develop better hunting related laws. And its fun :lol: I can hunt all day but I can't talk about it *all* the time. And you guys don't give a rip what we NRS think anyway :beer: what the hell do we know about North Dakota ??????? BUt I bet you can tell I like the politics :lol: :lol:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

For once Bob, I agree with you, and I do stress ONCE. I view liberalism as a "live and let live" philosophy. You do what you want to do, and I'll do what I want to do. It's not appropriate for any group or individual to force their views or lifestyles down anybody else's throat. It is also not appropriate for folks to tell me that some of my actions are wrong or inappropriate because THEIR religion or beliefs are different than mine.

We can't force other people to act and think like us, but we accept it as long as their actions do not impact safety or personal property. Along these same lines, I almost wholeheartedly disagree with your views on Iraq and the War on Terror, although I fully support your right to express these views. This is not a kiss up because I think that most of your views are arrogant and idiotic, but I do respect your right to state your opinion.

I also agree with you in that we shouldn't mandate diversity for diversity's sake. Although I am a staunch advocate for minorities and minority viewpoints, I would be the first person in line to protest affirmative action.

Now, I also have to disagree with your opinion that it is only liberals that want bigger government. I think that many conservatives would like a bigger government as long as that government would defend their political or social interests. For instance, the Patriot Act gives the government a huge amount of power over our personal liberties. Any true conservative would protest this. The president is now proposing a consitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. Again, the creation of more laws and giving the government more power over our lives. Why aren't conservatives protesting these two increases in government power? The answer is because they have conservative political or social interests in mind.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

This goes way beyond the political boundaries, its a huge cultural war.
What defines a liberal to some is the live and let live, don't answer to anyone, don't acknowledge religion because you would have a higher power to answer to.
There is a long list between the two cultures that divide us, but the most obvious one is morality!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BIg Daddy if you're agreeing with me you are getting smarter :lol: maybe there is hope for you yet. Those conservatives you speak of are no more conservative than the elistists I talked about were true liberals. The patriot act has a lot of stuff in it I don't agree with also but I really truthfully haven't read it yet and am pretty certain our slanted media has exaggerated it during this political season. Its a commentary on political correctness that marriage between two men would even have to be considered. Marriage has thru the ages been an institution with origins in religion that allow for a sound unit to procreate and raise children. The whole issue is trumped up by liberal homosexuals because its an election year, unfortunately we have so little common sense anymore in this country that laws have to be made to state what our grandparents saw as obvious. Your position on Iraq is unsupportable with fact and I'm not goin to waste my time going thru it again. 
And your last line about conservative having conservative issues in mind is dead right and thats what they should have that what politics is trying to win the hearts and minds of their fellow citizens thru peaceful debate and ledgislating those interests. *The liberal Democrats unfortunately have found that because they cannot win the minds of good people with commen sense have done an end run around our legislative government by appointing activist judges that are making things legal that our elected officals ( which represent us) say are not legal.* This is why they fight so hard to prevent appointment of judges( right now its George Bushes appointees)that actually enforce the laws as out elected representaive wrote them IE the Contitution. Instead of "interpret" them like the latest buzz word that the constitution is a "living document". The constitution says what it says on face value and does not need interpretation. Liberals know they cannot and probalby will not ever be able to pass their agendas in the arena of public opinion because the vast majority of the public has enough common sense to realize how ridiculous it is to have things like men marrying each other. Too bad for homosexuals becasue they were actually gaining some level of tolerance and this movement by their liberal component has set them back, people are just sick and tired of stupid stuff like this.


----------

