TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Left or Right?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I think it's kind of funny how everybody who's young (and poor) typically starts off being left wing/democratic yet as people get older (and wealthier) the population starts shifting towards being right wing/republican. Granted left wing doesn't necessarily equate with being democratic but it's usually the case that you're democratic if you're left wing.

haha ya so true

quote:

Originally posted by D'Paul I think its kinda funny that you think age is a real factor. A person doesn't necessarily become conservative as in the political spectrum as they get older. How often do you hear of a 60 year old shifting from the democratic party to the republican party? People just get set in their ways at some point and don't wish to change them. Essentially, this is conservatism in the general sense. If my views now are considered liberal when I'm 60, I'll still be a liberal. However, if society shifts its views and I'm sticking to my set beliefs, I just may be considered a conservative.

After doing a little bit of research into the matter, I was partially incorrect about my beliefs with the age factor (kind of ... middle age votes republican whereas senior citizen vote democratic) ... I was correct about the wealth factor (although that's not really a big surprise). And whoever said that education leads to left-wing thinking is only partially correct, that only applies to postgraduate degrees, not those who are just college graduates.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/

Of course these statistics are only going to tell us the opinion of those people who voted ....

quote:

Funny. Most people that go through a decent med school are paying roughly 30 grand per year. You find me any smart lower middle class - poor student that can afford this. The majority of people receiving an education in this country are those that can afford it. I know plenty of smart and talented kids personally that can't afford a decent college experience so they take community college courses while maintaining a full time job. With so much of their money being taken by the regressive tax breaks, I doubt they'll even manage to pay off their community college bills.

Well if that's the case nowadays then how come there's ppl who aren't very rich but save up for that day and make it through it all??

quote:

As for those who made it... Find me a person whose worked all their lives to get where they're at, having worked through being poor and filthy to becoming moderately wealthy, and can't empathize with other people trying to work their way up. I would think that this person would experience the inequality of these tax breaks and see how much easier it is for him or her to become richer after already having attained a sizeable amount of assets. Think this is you and you've worked so incredibly hard to get where you're at. Wouldn't you want to make that climb a little less strenuous for your little brother or sister?

A plastic surgeon, I know, lived in Boston and his dad was a family doctor, who's office was at the first story of the house. They weren't what you'd call a rediculously rich, but had enough for living where they were and get through life. The surgeon went to Boston Latin school and made it to Harvard. After that attended Tufts Med school. He served time in the military and then went into training for Plastic Surgery. Now he is well off, or finacially comfortable. The cars he has driven are all used and very messy inside. He doesn't walk around with a cane smokin blunts roun town. And he gets pissed when a liberal like Clinton gets in office and takes a BIG PORTION of his earnings that go toward social programs, welfare, and Social fucking Security. During these years, he only hired a few nursers, rather than now where he has hired more.

This goes for small businesses as well.

quote:

People who make more money have to depend upon more of the infrastructure of the country to support their endeaviours. Maybe we should abolish taxes altogether and make every single government service a user-pay system. Just don't get sick, or have a child that gets sick, requires special educational requirements, don't live where it's unprofitable to deliver mail, etc.

That's a different story, tho it would be nice to have no taxes and everything rely on private businesses, but that Libertarian view wouldn't work. Taxes shouldn't be wasted in social programs and MORE welfare, and more Social Security.

and back track

quote:

Hmm, its a known fact that as a person's education increases, their views shift to the left. I am a very educated person.

Idk how you concluded to this but then are you saying Larry King is more knowledgable than Rush Limbaugh? Is Antonin Scalia nothing compared to Howard Zinn, who wrote a history book according to what he says history is?

Men at some time are masters of their fates
-Cassius

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Well if that's the case nowadays then how come there's ppl who aren't very rich but save up for that day and make it through it all??

These people shouldn't have to wait until they're rich to be able to breath with regards to taxation. It angers me that some rich guy is paying 45% in taxes, and I'm working just as hard, if not harder, with 55% of my income taken away in taxes. Whose to say this rich guy had to work hard at all to get where he's at? My dad came here with 2 dollars in his pocket from India. He took advantage of welfare programs, student loans from the government, as well as organizations that provided shelter that were funded by the government. Now he owns a computer business and makes several hundred thousand dollars a year. In his life, he has worked so much harder than Joe Blow millionaire, who simply elevated his status from middle to upper class. I don't believe my dad could have made it without government aid.

quote:

A plastic surgeon, I know, lived in Boston and his dad was a family doctor, who's office was at the first story of the house. They weren't what you'd call a rediculously rich, but had enough for living where they were and get through life. The surgeon went to Boston Latin school and made it to Harvard. After that attended Tufts Med school. He served time in the military and then went into training for Plastic Surgery. Now he is well off, or finacially comfortable. The cars he has driven are all used and very messy inside. He doesn't walk around with a cane smokin blunts roun town. And he gets pissed when a liberal like Clinton gets in office and takes a BIG PORTION of his earnings that go toward social programs, welfare, and Social fucking Security. During these years, he only hired a few nursers, rather than now where he has hired more.

So lets see, what does this prove? A person born to a doctor made it? Hmm, this is obviously a person who never experienced any form of poverty, so obviously he can't empathize with programs that aid with welfare. Honestly, I hope his practice goes bankrupt and he has to face poverty. I want to see him try to make it from ground zero without any aid from the government. After all, thats when you see what a man is really made out of.

quote:

Idk how you concluded to this but then are you saying Larry King is more knowledgable than Rush Limbaugh? Is Antonin Scalia nothing compared to Howard Zinn, who wrote a history book according to what he says history is?

Take a sociology course friend. Any text book, conservative or liberal, will tell you general political views tend to skew to the left when a person has a college education or above. I find it funny that people dismiss Ralph Nader, a self made man, who graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and went through Harvard law school. This is a guy who is definately smarter than Rush Limbaugh, a Southeast Missouri State University graduate, and is equally more liberal than this lying POS conservative. I don't know about Larry King, but King is a celebrity who is about as credible as any other celebrity like Rosy O'Donnel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ted Nugent. Its like compairing apples and oranges. Howard Zinn, BTW, is a professor at the prestigious Boston University, or in other words, an educated man.

quote:

It angers me that some rich guy is paying 45% in taxes, and I'm working just as hard, if not harder, with 55% of my income taken away in taxes.

That makes no sense, unless you're referring to the Clinton Administration. If taxes were 39% the rich man would be taxes 39 and you'd be taxed 39. of course the rich man would loose more money than you b/c of his income but if you'd do a proportion then you'd loose just as much.

quote:

so obviously he can't empathize with programs that aid with welfare

I don't think he'd ever say that and I never said that. You got some fucking nerve stating everyone who's rich doesn't know what it's like on the streets, b/c you're very wrong. Govt aid is fine where it is, but when Clinton was in office welfare was raised, taxes were raised, ss was raised. Is this really necessary? Those programs are designed so ppl can get back on their feet not so ppl can rely on them as a decent income. The leftis ideology makes it so the people rely on the government so basically that makes the need for more government and higher taxes. Laissez faire is the way to go, economically speaking.

quote:

Take a sociology course friend. Any text book, conservative or liberal, will tell you general political views tend to skew to the left when a person has a college education or above. I find it funny that people dismiss Ralph Nader, a self made man, who graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and went through Harvard law school. This is a guy who is definately smarter than Rush Limbaugh, a Southeast Missouri State University graduate, and is equally more liberal than this lying POS conservative. I don't know about Larry King, but King is a celebrity who is about as credible as any other celebrity like Rosy O'Donnel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ted Nugent. Its like compairing apples and oranges. Howard Zinn, BTW, is a professor at the prestigious Boston University, or in other words, an educated man.

Maybe b/c a colleges are FULL of liberals and if you don't comply to their shit then you won't make a passing grade. Ralph Nader is that but you failed to mention Scalia who graduated from Harvard Law school. Was then General counsel, White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1971-72; chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1972-74; assistant attorney general, 1974-77. And Judge, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-86.

Larry King and Rush are in the same category. Have you ever heard Rush talk or King talk? If, for a fact, the left view is of a person's higher intellect then why in debates do Democrats result to throwing mud when the Republican gives his view and his successful backgroud evidence to back him? Why does Howard Zinn write a book on History from the way HE SEES IT? Is that correct? Shouldn't history be written according to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

If you ever watch CSPAN and it's the House on, look for Coreen Brown(D) and then hear JC Watts(R). Tell me bout your "intellect is greater with views farther to the left" then.

quote:

Originally posted by D'Paul Take a sociology course friend. Any text book, conservative or liberal, will tell you general political views tend to skew to the left when a person has a college education or above. I find it funny that people dismiss Ralph Nader, a self made man, who graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and went through Harvard law school. This is a guy who is definately smarter than Rush Limbaugh, a Southeast Missouri State University graduate, and is equally more liberal than this lying POS conservative. I don't know about Larry King, but King is a celebrity who is about as credible as any other celebrity like Rosy O'Donnel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ted Nugent. Its like compairing apples and oranges. Howard Zinn, BTW, is a professor at the prestigious Boston University, or in other words, an educated man.

I don't need a textbook ... the statistics I quoted listed those with a college education voting more for Bush (a conservative) over Gore (a liberal). If you're going to classify both as conservatives why did more college grads not vote for nader?

Are you sure? A lot of College professors along with students are liberals, especially up north. Any college in particular you're referring to?

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Are you sure? A lot of College professors along with students are liberals, especially up north. Any college in particular you're referring to?

Here are the exit poll statistics:

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %


Vote by College Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
College Educated 58 % 47 % 49 % 1 % 2 %
No College 42 % 48 % 48 % 0 % 3 %

It's not polling only college students, it's polling all people, whether they went to college, and who they voted for.

Ahh ok, that's interesting.

To D'Paul:
Did you vote for Gore? And if you did, why?

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X That makes no sense, unless you're referring to the Clinton Administration. If taxes were 39% the rich man would be taxes 39 and you'd be taxed 39. of course the rich man would loose more money than you b/c of his income but if you'd do a proportion then you'd loose just as much.

Actually, you're right about this proportion. All I can argue is that eventually money, for those who are astronomically wealthy, becomes more about status than actual functionality. One of the reasons behind taxation is to help regulate wealth . Should tax breaks consistently be benefitting the wealthy, I fail to see how this goal of semi-equality can be met.

quote:

You got some fucking nerve stating everyone who's rich doesn't know what it's like on the streets, b/c you're very wrong.

Never said that. If you go over what was stated, I said that the person you mentioned couldn't identify with poverty. Why? Because his father was a doctor and they were able to afford housing within the city of Boston, which is quite costly. You said this man, "gets pissed when a liberal like Clinton gets in office and takes a BIG PORTION of his earnings that go toward social programs, welfare, and Social fucking Security." The only way I could take this is that this man does not like the poor or elderly because he certainly doesn't want to help them out through taxation. I don't know, this is all I have to go on. He could be mentoring kids, or helping at a soup kitchen. Of course, he could be spending his free time trying to find more nurses and trying expand his practice so he can make more money. Nothing is wrong with either. However, the poor do need help and taxation is a rather effective, easy means of doing so.

quote:

Govt aid is fine where it is, but when Clinton was in office welfare was raised, taxes were raised, ss was raised. Is this really necessary? Those programs are designed so ppl can get back on their feet not so ppl can rely on them as a decent income. The leftis ideology makes it so the people rely on the government so basically that makes the need for more government and higher taxes. Laissez faire is the way to go, economically speaking.

Laissez fair is the way to go? Hahahahahahahaha!!!! Have fun coping with all the price taking monopolies that build up. Economically speaking, you and I won't see a dime of the massive profits being generated by the multi-billion dollar corporations. If a corporate head wants to keep all the revenue coming in, who is to stop him or her?

BTW, why would anyone settle for being dirt poor and having to live on welfare? No person can rely on welfare to meet the basic needs of survival. This means no home, poor clothing, and poor nutrition or hunger. How will this make a person lazy and reliant on the government? If anything, people use welfare as a means to supplement their jobs and move up the economic ladder. Besides, most people eligible for welfare don't take it anyway because they are ashamed or the application process is far too complicated.

quote:

Maybe b/c a colleges are FULL of liberals and if you don't comply to their shit then you won't make a passing grade. Ralph Nader is that but you failed to mention Scalia who graduated from Harvard Law school. Was then General counsel, White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1971-72; chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1972-74; assistant attorney general, 1974-77. And Judge, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-86. Larry King and Rush are in the same category. Have you ever heard Rush talk or King talk? If, for a fact, the left view is of a person's higher intellect then why in debates do Democrats result to throwing mud when the Republican gives his view and his successful backgroud evidence to back him? Why does Howard Zinn write a book on History from the way HE SEES IT? Is that correct? Shouldn't history be written according to WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? If you ever watch CSPAN and it's the House on, look for Coreen Brown(D) and then hear JC Watts(R). Tell me bout your "intellect is greater with views farther to the left" then.

Howard Zinn can write a book about whatever he wants. Yes, America is that free of a country. Howard Zinn, however, is not the embodiement of liberals everywhere. Why you keep mentioning him is beyond me. I never said that all college or well educated people are liberals, so I never felt it necessary to address Scalia's education.

Occrider gave an excellent example of voter distribution for this past presidential election. The highest voter turnout came from those with a post undergraduate education (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/) and they seemed to vote liberal (although I question just how liberal Gore is). This election had the lowest total voter turnout since the 50�s, so I don�t think any of the other categories are representative of the higher education/political spectrum tilt to the left.

Cracka-X, I unfortunately was not able to vote in the last election because I was too young. In hindsight, I would have voted for Gore just to keep the economy in stable condition. Had I actually been able to vote at the time w/out knowing the results, I would have certainly voted for Nader. This man is a well educated leader who saved many lives as a consumer advocate lawyer. In addition, I know he�d be thinking of me with every piece of passing legislation and not some corporate sponsor. Also, I'd like to apologize if it seems like I've insulted you in anyway. I want to keep this a well-mannered discourse. After all, we're both here in the name of trance and other electronic music.

Interesting how 80% of the jews voted for Gore. I thought jews were generally more right winged, at least judging by these boards .

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X That's a different story, tho it would be nice to have no taxes and everything rely on private businesses, but that Libertarian view wouldn't work. Taxes shouldn't be wasted in social programs and MORE welfare, and more Social Security.

So are you against corporate welfare, the welfare you don't hear about, where costs are socialized, but profits are privatized? A ton of money goes toward corporate giants in the form of tax incentives to build plants in various jurisdictions. (I know, a vague, sweeping generalization, but we're on a message board.) It's easy to point the finger at individual people who are seen as leeches, but how about the big boys of welfare?

And as far as private businesses, do you think they would offer essential services to small rural communities at affordable prices?

Center-Ish-Left-Ist

I used to be vaguely left, but the current lefty circus has drawn me more to the right.

quote:

Howard Zinn can write a book about whatever he wants. Yes, America is that free of a country. Howard Zinn, however, is not the embodiement of liberals everywhere. Why you keep mentioning him is beyond me.

Maybe it's just me but it seems wrong to write history according to someone's bias of misinformation.

quote:

I never said that all college or well educated people are liberals, so I never felt it necessary to address Scalia's education. Hmm, its a known fact that as a person's education increases, their views shift to the left. I am a very educated person.

You mentioned Ralph Nader so I mentioned Scalia.

quote:

Actually, you're right about this proportion. All I can argue is that eventually money, for those who are astronomically wealthy, becomes more about status than actual functionality. One of the reasons behind taxation is to help regulate wealth . Should tax breaks consistently be benefitting the wealthy, I fail to see how this goal of semi-equality can be met.

Bill Clinton was at a press conference and what he talked of was of a socialist nation. A reporter asked," Mr.Clinton, can you name a successful Economic Socialist nation?" There was a pause and Mr.Clinton's answer was "No" which was followed by his jibber jabber gib-el-dee-gop and got away once more decieving America. I always thought taxation was to "give it to the ppl" as most liberals do.

quote:

So are you against corporate welfare, the welfare you don't hear about, where costs are socialized, but profits are privatized? A ton of money goes toward corporate giants in the form of tax incentives to build plants in various jurisdictions. (I know, a vague, sweeping generalization, but we're on a message board.) It's easy to point the finger at individual people who are seen as leeches, but how about the big boys of welfare?

This is addressed to D'Paul's last quote and Wurm.

Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks.

quote:

BTW, why would anyone settle for being dirt poor and having to live on welfare? No person can rely on welfare to meet the basic needs of survival. This means no home, poor clothing, and poor nutrition or hunger. How will this make a person lazy and reliant on the government? If anything, people use welfare as a means to supplement their jobs and move up the economic ladder. Besides, most people eligible for welfare don't take it anyway because they are ashamed or the application process is far too complicated.

I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks. I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

You're focussing your attention in the wrong places.

Microsoft is not an example of greatness. The whole idea of an icon was stolen from Apple.

Welfare to individuals is a drop in the bucket compared to welfare to corporations, most of whom have CEOs raking in 7-8 figure salaries while cutting personnel to 'trim the fat'. If you quote to me from the book of Microsoft, then I could quote to you from the book of Enron.

quote:

Originally posted by Cracka-X Maybe it's just me but it seems wrong to write history according to someone's bias of misinformation.

No matter what you read about history, you're getting someone's opinion on what really happened. History is a set of lies agreed upon. Andrew Jackson is on the 20 dollar bill, yet he was one of the most racist presidents in America's brief existence. This is the man who is responsible for the trail of tears and he is glorified at any place there is a cash register.

Tell me what you think about Big Tobacco spending inordinant amounts of money to slander the Tobacco Act a few years ago? Their distortions told people that this act would tax people with incomes under $30,000 at disproportionately high rates. Yes, it would have, had they been smokers. The tax would have only been levied on cigarettes. Also, the money generated would have almost entirely gone to cancer research. How about the Telecommunications Bill of a few years ago? It was hailed on corporate owned media outlets as a bipartisan bill that would cut costs to consumers. Unfortunately, it failed to mention that there was a provision that requires all new telephones to be pre-wired for government wire taps. In addition, there is a provision that bars local governments from banning cellular telephone towers or from restricting them because of radiation-associated health hazards. This means they get to take our land and use it for cell phone towers no matter what the risk is to society. But who cares right? They're rich, and they've made it, so they don't need any restrictions as to how much they can distort the truth.

Now tell me that Howard Zinn is wrong for writing a book, which he explicitly expains is in his perspective, that chronicles our history.

quote:

You mentioned Ralph Nader so I mentioned Scalia.

No, you mentioned Scalia, so I mentioned Nader. Nader is not the joke that Ross Perot was, so I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that no one takes him seriously. He is an educated man with a proven track record.

quote:

Bill Clinton was at a press conference and what he talked of was of a socialist nation. A reporter asked," Mr.Clinton, can you name a successful Economic Socialist nation?" There was a pause and Mr.Clinton's answer was "No" which was followed by his jibber jabber gib-el-dee-gop and got away once more decieving America. I always thought taxation was to "give it to the ppl" as most liberals do.

Are you calling me a socialist? I'm not an advocate for a socialist republic nor former President Clinton. I don't know why Republicans or conservatives in general sit there and bash Clinton. The guy was a conservative in a liberal guise. He backed away from legislation that would put restrictions on big business, he didn't care about the environment, he didn't allow for gay marriages, and he never cut defense spending. The only thing he did do was marginally raise taxes (I'd like to point out that liberals don't advocate for tax hikes. We just believe that they rarely ever stimulate the economy and history proves us right) and give a little relief to government sponsored social programs. This alone a liberal does not make. By the way, there isn't a single pure socialist country in the world. Most follow a secretly fascist (or extremely conservative) regime.

quote:

This is addressed to D'Paul's last quote and Wurm. Bill Clinton wanted to break Bill Gates's company up and make multiple mediocre companies. That way these multiple companies would make profit and everybody would be happy in the companies. The way it stands now, Bill Gates has the biggest software company b/c he's the most cutting edge of any of the competitors. And as a result there is newer software, more effecient, more progress can be made b/c he can reinvest his profits in this research. This is an example of a wealthy person using his resources and corporate welfare to improve the product, and increases the jobs. Concluding that there is a benefit to corporate welfare when these large companies reinvest their tax breaks.

I believe my friend Wurm covered this particular portion of your response. I'd just like to add that corporations are not people shouldn't get tax breaks. People get tax breaks and how they choose to use it, reinvestment, savings, or consuming it, is up to them. I would also like to say that Bill Gates has not always had the best product available, but has had the funds to kill the competition and distort truths. Windows fucks up on me more than it should and was promised. Gates' profits also goes to more marketing for his rehashed product lines such as Microsoft Office.

quote:

I know a bitch that has been living off her welfare for the past year now. She has one kid, an apartment, a car that her mom bought for her, and she gets $700 from the govt a month. This is the type of bullshit that I don't appreciate. And why welfare doesn't need to be increased.

Nice choice of language. Welfare in this country is a very poorly run institution and no one seems to pay enough attention to make actual reform. Cutting money, though, will not make the program any better. There would be less incentive for the people running the show to streamline the process and make it so that the people who need help receive it. Cutting the program all together would just show we don't care. We should just get guns and kill off all those whom we know are gonna fail in life, right? I mean money isn't the only means of helping the needy, but most well off taxpaying citizens don't put in the time and effort to help either. Neither should they have to, hence, taxation.

I devote a lot of time to helping out the underpriveledged, so I've encountered a lot of people on welfare and working minimum-wage jobs at the same time. On weekends, you'll see me at soup kitchens, habitat for humanity, the YMCA, or various other places that seek to aid the homeless and/or poor. For this one person you mention that gets $700 a month for nothing, I encounter roughly 200 people a month that are getting $100 from welfare and working at least 2 jobs to support themselves and their children. Basically, you found one person that is exploiting the system and has an outside resource for money. The men and women I mentioned don't have any crutches to fall back on. Don't distrust everyone because of this one lady.

quote:

Originally posted by D'Paul Democrats aren't the left in my book. If they are in yours, I can see where you're coming from.

There are John Breax democrats, and then there are Diane Finestine/Hillary clinton democrats.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Interesting how 80% of the jews voted for Gore. I thought jews were generally more right winged, at least judging by these boards .

AL Gore's running mate was a jew. Maybe that explains things.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.