http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... urks_x.htm

Someday I will have this type of power and exposure, and we will crush the goddamn Republicans like GRAPES.

I'm down, Dave.
Reporting for duty.

Getting back to the article, it seems to me that not enough people get involved in the political process until societal forces start playing an everyday role in their lives. That usually happens when you have kids in school since you realize you should start giving a shit about the world and its effects on your progeny.

But by that time, you've got a house, two-car, mortgage, taxes and a healthy case of middle-class outrage - which usually means you're gonna lean GOP since they come off as the virtuous guardians against the hedonistic tax-happy, pseudo-Communist barbarians in Hollywood, NYC and any other urban area.

Dems are made young. That's what the party has to learn.

Whassamatta, Springsteen and Streisand not cool enough for you? Dan Rather and whatshisface from the Daily Show not influential enough?

The only ones who have any legitimate beef are the "other party" folks, who get locked out of debates and who have their names kept off the ballots.

Note: I'm responding only to the thread title, I really can't afford McPaper the attention-span required to peruse their cruddy excuse for journalism.

Funny, I clicked on the index, and it said you were the most recent responder, and I knew you'd have something snarky to say.

This isn't mentioned in the article, but I think it IS part of the problem. I mean shit, if their is (which their decidedly is NOT) a liberal bent to the media, and the Dems STILL can't take advantage of it, its because the Party's message, not the mediums are flawed.

But, don't worry, I got ideas for that, too. LIKE GRAPE WE WILL CRUSH

<---- not sure he'd want to drink wine made from Trent Lott.

You know, with all due respect, I don't really agree with this. I have friends/family who have been diehard Republicans since the day they were born-- not because of some shift in their familial situation, but because it's the only thing they've ever known and they consciously refuse to find out more about the world outside of their own little bubble. I do agree with you that sometimes people don't get active until it's too late, but I don't think the reasons you specified are why people go Republican.

To me, it's just a basic belief on my part that *I* am not the only person who matters in this world. There are people out there that need help, or support, or a voice. The Democrats try to appeal to those empathic people, but somehow get maligned by the neo-cons as being "wimps." Since when is it wimpy to care about your fellow man or woman?

I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I just don't understand people my own age, and people who are much younger than me (highschool/college-aged kids) who actively support the Republican party. My parents support them because of "moral reasons." Well, I can't think of anything more immoral than attacking a country with no real reason, or having liaisons with documented corrupt corporations. The Republicans say they want less government, yet they're willing to sign off on legislation that tells you who can marry or have sex with, or tell you that God should be included in schools. The Republicans tell you that they want to privitize social security to make it more lucrative for future retirees, while most Americans don't even have a savings account and woudn't know the first thing about how to invest money. Basically, when you get right down to it, I think a lot of the Republican supporters still WANT the same things Democratic supporters want, but they're so blinded by the rhetoric and spin that they don't see the forest for the trees.

<---- happy not to disappoint

That's a really "holier than thou" attitude.

There are *many* reasons people of *any* age would support the Republican party over the Democratic party.

They might, just might, view affirmative action as racist.

They might, just might, consider a redistributionist tax policy as tantamount to theft.

They might, just might, believe that a more free marketplace will generate a better quality of life for all citizens than would a marketplace shackled by regulations and taxes.

They might, just might, believe that allowing the government to appropriate a greater portion, and hence determine the disposal of a greater portion of the wealth of the citizenry to be an attack on personal freedom.

They might, just might, believe that there has to be an issue that wasn't solved more effectively by private entities than by government intervention.

They might, just might, suspect that environmental scare mongering is nothing more than pandering to special interest groups and their lawyers, and that they might, just might, prefer to trade for a lower cost of living at the expense of a tract of wasteland north of the 60 degree latitude.

They might, just might, believe that a government handout is no way to help anyone, and that the welfare system creates a dependence from which people rarely escape. They might, just might, view such so-called humanitarian initiatives as more damaging than beneficial to the people at risk.

They might, just might, believe that Scott Peterson should be dead, and fast, and that life without parole is a colossal waste of money.

Well said, Billzebub, and you have the right to your opinion as I do mine. I base my opinion on family and friends that espouse those beliefs, who are not socially retarded or ill-educated believe it or not. And while I will say that your points are valid and that not all social interests are addressed effectively (by the government or whoever), that doesn't mean that it should be ignored or abandoned.

So if I came off as holier than thou, well, I guess that's how it is. This is a board that allows people to voice their opinions and sometimes we don't all agree. So, I tip my hat at your post.

You can’t really believe that can you? There has to be a balance and if big business have totally control over regulations than they will only look at maximizing their profits.

Do some environmental groups go too far? Sure, but most of them really are trying to look out for the future and the next generation.

A better quality of life for all citizens? I don't think so, and the poverty rate of this country as well as the way a capitalist economy works show that the likelyhood of this happening is very slim.

and don't even get me started on the environment

Why can't I believe that? I must be stupid or defective, right? Your incredulous and indignant stance is offensive.

What constitutes a "balance"? One could argue that the green front considers anything short of total capitulation to be out of balance.

There are always trade-offs. We cut trees to build houses, railroads, etc. We open up the earth to mine minerals. We pollute to heat ourselves and in order to eat.

I repeat, what is the balance? Is it better to import oil from despots, having to ship it thousands of miles, vulnerable to spillage? Amoco Cadiz, anyone? Or do we drill closer to home and use pipelines?

Who is going to determine this balance? Some group of politicians who have prostituted themselves to special interest groups in order to get elected?

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that folks have a different view on the myriad of issues we all confront. I also accept that their different view in no way invalidates either their views or my own. I don't hold anyone in any greater or less esteem because we might disagree. As long as long as there is a thought process behind the conclusions you reach, you have my respect. I take umbrage with the automatic conclusion that anyone who disagrees with an idealogy is either misinformed, unenlightened, misguided, or stupid.

Are there people living in poverty in the U.S.? You betcha. Do they deserve "our" help. Yes.

However, the poverty rate is a bunch of crap. According to the government you can have a net worth of a few million dollars, own a couple of houses and some fine sports cars, but, if you only earned a few thousand dollars in income last year you are considered to be living in poverty.

The government only considers paychecks when they measure poverty. What you have earned already, what's going on in your bank accounts..etc. don't count diddly. This all goes back to LBJ. He wanted poverty to be measured in such a way that he could continue to push forward his war on poverty programs.

To this day the government measures poverty in this asinine way.

Steve

Yeah, socialism is doing wonders in eastern Europe and mainland and southeast Asia. I sure wish we had an interventionist government making sure we were as well off as they are in Cuba.

Shall i point out to you that it was one Mr. Kerry calling for energy independence and that pimp in the White House who is all for propping up despotic regimes so we can get their black gold. I guess the market will eventually correct this problem?

The prob was the way he tried to sell it, and my side was outgunned on this one.

No, I didn’t say any of those things and I wasn’t trying to offend you and if I have I’m sorry. I was just saying that not all environmental groups are these extreme psychos. Some are just oversight groups, independent of the government, that oversee what business is up to.



Already stated:
Do some environmental groups go too far? Sure, but most of them really are trying to look out for the future and the next generation.



True and I never said that any of that stuff has to stop. Humans just have to be smarter about this or our natural resources will dry up. Granted it might be too late anyways. We have two nations with a billion people apiece and rain forest disappearing at an alarming rate. Either technology has to keep us going, a major catastrophe, or humans will whip out everything including ourselves.



Balance with nature, we can’t cut down every last tree otherwise we won’t be able to breath and so on. Oil makes our world go round, I realize that, and until technology gives us an alternative and oil companies stop fighting research, humans might be able to get by some other way. Until than oil rules and drives modern life, nothing we can do about that at the moment.



Politics is special interest and vise versa. Why not get the best of both worlds together and come up with a balanced plan. This is what I have the hardest problem with. Humans are good overall and we want what is right for us and future generations. Why is it so difficult? You have to take into account what science tells us and what the needs of humans are. It can’t always be about us; sometimes nature just needs to be.



Ditto.

It just sounded like talk radio to me, saying every environmental group is extream. Again, no offence and sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope this clears things up from my end.

The environment and the issues always seem to hit a nerve with me. If I had the time I would of went into things with even more detail and backed up everything with proof.

Peace

Yeah, no sweat. I'm a tad cranky today.

How about we find an alternative to using oil? Or use more of the already existing alternative energies.

Anyway, I don't think what dnorwood said was necessarily holding Republicans in less esteem by saying that there is a certain "me and my family first" aspect to being a Republican. I think that this is an undeniable belief of the Republican party and pointing it out is not necessarily any kind of moral judgement on them. There's nothing immoral about wanting to take care of your own. But as a more "liberal" person, it's not how I choose to think about the world, and I think that "taking care of your own" can quickly turn into straight up greed if you're not careful.

Dude, it is totally my fault and I see that now. I often come off a certain way when I mean something altogether different. Though I did ask it in a question. That smilly made it look like I was looking down on your opinion. When in fact, it was only suppose to mean a sad face… I totally respect where you are coming from.