Why are there Young Republicans groups but no Young Dems groups?

[Riddlen 1]

Is it cause they space out and miss the meetings? Busy buying frisbees and pot? I always wondered this.

[ArnieBragg 1]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...young+democrats

[PackerAttacker 0]

My friend is a raging liberal history teacher..... he is in charge of a young liberals group at his school. That always kind of bothered me, I think its a conflict of interest that the kids know their teacher leans a certain way. It may be inevitable (plus obvious because almost all teachers are dems)... but they should be teaching as close to middle ground on issues as possible. And when your history teacher is in charge of a young liberals group, I just think its corrupting the minds of easily influenced people.

 

Incidently he had a unit called "Why Reagan was a bad president"... I was tempted to call the principal and get him fired.

[Riddlen 1]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...young+democrats

then what are they doing casue I dont remember them...

[Red White and Blue 0]

Most of those Young Republican groups are fronts for child molestation rings.

[pingpong 0]

Young and liberal usually goes hand in hand. Younger people tend to think more ideallogically. As you get older, you become more realistic. IMO, that is why the young Repubs need to identify themselvs as such.

[GobbleDog 822]

Incidently he had a unit called "Why Reagan was a bad president"... I was tempted to call the principal and get him fired.

 

Reagan spent too much money and completely ignored the AIDs crisis. Other than that, I liked old Reagan.

[FranksTanks 0]

Because Republicans have to groom them and get to them early before they get too far with school and learn to think for themselves. Sort of like big tobacco.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

There are two main reasons for this phenomenon:

1. Young people are often easily pulled towards radical thoughts and actions. That is why they are typically targets of cults and embrace things like Nazism

2. Democrats eat their young

 

HTH

[ArnieBragg 1]

There are two main reasons for this phenomenon:

1. Young people are often easily pulled towards radical thoughts and actions. That is why they are typically targets of cults and embrace things like Nazism

2. Democrats eat their young

 

HTH

 

That sig is a disaster.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That sig is a disaster.

 

Why?

[FutbolJugador 0]

It's called PETA

[Bert 1,101]

Because they are busy constructing buildings, mowing grass, washing dishes, picking lettuce, etc.

[phillybear 365]

Reagan spent too much money and completely ignored the AIDs crisis. Other than that, I liked old Reagan.

 

Reagan was the best President we have had in my lifetime.

[surferskin 30]

Reagan was the best President we have had in my lifetime.

[wiffleball 4,660]

Because young Dems are too busy getting laid to form some geeky political club wherein they sit around and do a circle jerk to "The O'Reily Factor".

[brinett9 0]

There was a 'Hitler Youth' but no 'Roosevelt Youth' too.

[surferskin 30]

Because young Dems are too busy getting laid and having 6 or 7 kids out of wedlock to go to college and join a political club.

you've got a good point there.

[ArnieBragg 1]

you've got a good point there.

 

Any comment CMH?

[brinett9 0]

Because you need at least 10 people to do a good job blowing up a levee system?

[DanXIII 8]

then what are they doing casue I dont remember them...

 

I think the point was that just because you have not heard of something does not mean it does not exist.

[Thornton Melon 546]

If you're 20 years old and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're 35 years old and not a conservative, you have no brain.

[EMoney 0]

Incidently he had a unit called "Why Reagan was a bad president"... I was tempted to call the principal and get him fired.

 

You don't have to be a liberal historian to believe that. As a history major I remember doing research on Reagan and noticing that he had an unusually high number of cabinet members that spoke out against him after they left their post. I think every economist he had on staff wrote a book slamming his policies. If you were wealthy or are now you should like Reagan. Other than that he didn't spend much time on the common man.

[DanXIII 8]

Incidently he had a unit called "Why Reagan was a bad president"... I was tempted to call the principal and get him fired.

 

...because the "only" point of view is that Reagan was a "good" president?

[Liberals are Clueless 0]

Incidently he had a unit called "Why Reagan was a bad president"... I was tempted to call the principal and get him fired.

That is something only Liberals would do.

[EMoney 0]

but they should be teaching as close to middle ground on issues as possible.

 

Yeah because there is so much middle ground in history. I really hope he gives both sides to Hitler's invasion of Europe. I'd also like to know that a teacher finds some middle ground in Japan bombing American soldiers at Pearl Harbor. You obviously just want middle ground on issues that you are biased on. History teachers are supposed to have their own opinions. There is no middle ground on history, its all based on the opinions of who teaches or writes it. Most any history student knows this. I had some history teachers that were extremely liberal and extremely conservative in college. They never cared if I had a different view as long as I could make an intelligent argument about my viewpoint. If not, my point would never be taken and I would make a bad grade.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

Reagan was the best President we have had in my lifetime.

[Riddlen 1]

I think the point was that just because you have not heard of something does not mean it does not exist.

thanks professor, I got it. It also sorta ruined the joke. I realize there is a young dems club, the joke is that they were too busy getting high and flunking classes to organize.

 

Also, on the thread within the thread I always thought Reagen was a highly regarded president and one of the most popular of all time and that only uber-liberals disliked him and that was simply on principle since there was an R next ot his name. I am too young to remember him...

[GettnHuge 1]

dems are a coalition party of issue voters who are quite different. from unions, minorities, gays, enviros...

 

reps are a party of people who believe in similar overall issues.

 

s'why guys like limbaugh have so many unified listeners while the libs don't get that among so many groups with so different agendas.

hell the only thing they have in common nowadays is they hate bush. but then again why would yongn libs need to waste their time in meetings

when they could just turn on the evening news every night for the last few decades.

[Red White and Blue 0]

There are young Democrats. Those groups probably aren't as noticeable as young Republican groups because 1) young people tend to vote Democrat and 2) young people just don't vote in great numbers. I'm probably getting these figures wrong but I think fewer than 15% of 18-21 y/os voted in '04. Also, a lot of Republicans are conspiracy theorists who think the media and academia are full of pinko Commies trying to corrupt their children, so as a way of fighting back they set up Young Republican groups to indoctrinate young, impressionable youth with their selfish nonsense.

 

HTH!

[FranksTanks 0]

dems are a coalition party of issue voters

Issue voters? Come on. Why would the Republican Party spend so much time and money convincing voters that their bible would be taken away, the country would be attacked again, gays would run the streets, and there would be mandatory abortions, if they didn't think they would grab those single issue voters? Thet're not all holding hands and happy with the war, but if a gay man is going to get married, that's enough for them to punch the R ticket in the voting booth.

[GettnHuge 1]

Issue voters? Come on. Why would the Republican Party spend so much time and money convincing voters that their bible would be taken away, the country would be attacked again, gays would run the streets, and there would be mandatory abortions, if they didn't think they would grab those single issue voters? Thet're not all holding hands and happy with the war, but if a gay man is going to get married, that's enough for them to punch the R ticket in the voting booth.

 

well duh, that is the typical insanity that both sides do for elections. this isn't about that

[wiffleball 4,660]

dems are a coalition party of issue voters who are quite different. from unions, minorities, gays, enviros...

 

reps are a party of people who believe in similar overall issues.

 

s'why guys like limbaugh have so many unified listeners while the libs don't get that among so many groups with so different agendas.

hell the only thing they have in common nowadays is they hate bush. but then again why would yongn libs need to waste their time in meetings

when they could just turn on the evening news every night for the last few decades.

 

 

I don't agree with that viewpoint. Republicans are as diverse as any other group. In fact, the greatest threat to the GOP today isn't the Democrats (who can't get their shiit together), it's the fear of the GOP dividing against itself. There is a definite schism between the traditional conservative and the extreme fundamentalism we see driving Bush's agenda. The traditional conservative belives in some central tenets:

 

1> Fiscal Responsibility. (not being practiced by Bush)

 

2> SMALL government . (DEFINITELY not practiced by Bush who created the largest bureaucracy in US history)

 

3> Unobtrusive government. (Bush's Christian Taleban crawling into our bedrooms - 'nuff said)

 

4> Strong national defense focused on domestic defense - not "Nation Building" & foreign intervention. (Bush actually campaigned on this idea - and did a complete 180.)

 

There's a lot of Conservatives/Republicans taht are very dissatisfied with their party's leader. The didn't vote for him the 2nd time because they agreed with him - but b/c the Dems can't field a decent candidate if their life depended upon it).

[Soonerman 0]

3> Unobtrusive government. (Bush's Christian Taleban crawling into our bedrooms - 'nuff said)

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I don't agree with that viewpoint. Republicans are as diverse as any other group. In fact, the greatest threat to the GOP today isn't the Democrats (who can't get their shiit together), it's the fear of the GOP dividing against itself. There is a definite schism between the traditional conservative and the extreme fundamentalism we see driving Bush's agenda. The traditional conservative belives in some central tenets:

 

1> Fiscal Responsibility. (not being practiced by Bush)

 

2> SMALL government . (DEFINITELY not practiced by Bush who created the largest bureaucracy in US history)

 

3> Unobtrusive government. (Bush's Christian Taleban crawling into our bedrooms - 'nuff said)

 

4> Strong national defense focused on domestic defense - not "Nation Building" & foreign intervention. (Bush actually campaigned on this idea - and did a complete 180.)

 

There's a lot of Conservatives/Republicans taht are very dissatisfied with their party's leader. The didn't vote for him the 2nd time because they agreed with him - but b/c the Dems can't field a decent candidate if their life depended upon it).

 

That is why I stay independent. Both parties stand for things that aren't so bad. I definitely lean towards Republican ideals, but the Republican party in recent years (as you mentioned) has strayed far away from those ideals.

 

Since I am not a real fan of Democrats either, I have to pick the lesser of two evils.

[wiffleball 4,660]

 

 

well that's certainly an educated viewpoint.

[Soonerman 0]

well that's certainly an educated viewpoint.

 

Your #3 got all the comment it deserved.

[Hairy Larry 0]

Your #3 got all the comment it deserved.

yeah..i dont argue when i don't have anything worthwhile too say either.

[Soonerman 0]

yeah..i dont argue when i don't have anything worthwhile too say either.

 

Guess we won't be seeing you around much.

 

Or evah!!!

[Hairy Larry 0]

we