Birmingham officially sucks more...

[Kaos]

You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation.  In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.  

Not judging.  Merely observing the general attitude. 

I don't know that my generation would be able to take that burden and thrive the way my grandparents did.  When you think of just how many of them left and didn't come back -- and went willingly knowing what they were going to face -- I just don't know. 

I'd like to think we would, but what I see now makes me question it.  Would I have left my new wife and baby when I was 24 to go overseas and endure what they did?  Would I pile off the boat at Normandy with the bullets flying everywhere, knowing that my chances of survival were slim?  I'd like to think so, but I just don't know. 

I know that most of the people in the current administration (and I don't mean Obama, necessarily I'm talking about all of Washington) probably would not have.  Many of them did not and looked for any way possible to avoid facing that kind of future during Vietnam.   Funny how the vets from that war are ostracized as loonies while many of the people who protested their sacrifice now serve in Washington. 

[jadennis]

You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation.  In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.  

You may be right, and it's true, we haven't been able to see how certain generations would handle the 1940s.

But I don't know if the majority of those in power today would pull it off.  The ones in power, and a large portion under 35ish, are the main ones that rant and rave about civilian casualties as we're fighting Taliban in southern Afghanistan.  Yes, I know civilian casualties are not good, but they are a byproduct of war...always have been, and are a much smaller % today than in past wars.

I don't know that they would step up and just do what had to be done.  The reason I say this is because they seem to be so sidetracked with perceived political correctness.  It governs every decision they make.  It clouds clear thinking on bigger issues, because they make the bigger issues have to fall under less important "politically correct" guidelines and criteria.  They try too hard to fight too nice...or more often than not, they try too hard to not fight at all.

[Lurking Tiger]

Not judging.  Merely observing the general attitude. 

I don't know that my generation would be able to take that burden and thrive the way my grandparents did.  When you think of just how many of them left and didn't come back -- and went willingly knowing what they were going to face -- I just don't know. 

I'd like to think we would, but what I see now makes me question it.  Would I have left my new wife and baby when I was 24 to go overseas and endure what they did?  Would I pile off the boat at Normandy with the bullets flying everywhere, knowing that my chances of survival were slim?  I'd like to think so, but I just don't know. 

I know that most of the people in the current administration (and I don't mean Obama, necessarily I'm talking about all of Washington) probably would not have.  Many of them did not and looked for any way possible to avoid facing that kind of future during Vietnam.   Funny how the vets from that war are ostracized as loonies while many of the people who protested their sacrifice now serve in Washington. 

That's a myth. A large portion of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war. Soldiers were drafted (not all, of course) and went.

As far as Normandy, the grunts in the landing boats didn't know what was coming.

We all would have piled off that boat. Suicide not to. Some of us would have heavier underwear than others.

[Tarheel]

I think you are going to get your wish.

As for the rest of this nonsense, DC has become too power hungry. Doesn't matter which generation is in there. They are all scumbags to a certain extent. They will only change when outside forces make them change, for their own good. They don't care about the average American. If you believe they do, you are naive. It's all about remaining in power. It was the same for the WWII folks.

Sometimes they make the right choices, sometimes they make the wrong changes. Nothing to do with political viewpoint. Just varying degrees of smarts and luck.

Or generation either...good points all LT.

So...we should listen to older generations.  We should follow older generations.  We should support older generations.

Isn't Obama part of an older generation?

You act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds into office and we now run the country.  Last time I checked, everyone that was elected was not of our generation.  It is their leadership, not ours, that has changed the country's course.  We put our voting power in support of older generations, and then you complain when we do so even though that's what you want us to do.

And let's get some numbers straight while we're at it.  Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18–29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3% and 54.5%.  66% of those, according to your article's numbers, voted for Obama.  66% of 24 million is 15.84 million.  122,394,724 is the total number of voters in 2008.  15.84 million is approximately 13% of the total 122,294,724 voters.  13% doesn't win an election by itself; older generations played a major part as well.

Oh, and while we're blaming generations of voters, 67% of voters 65 and older voted for Bush in 2004.  Not the hippie generation, but the generation that you probably view as pioneers who stuck through the hard times and made it through, giving birth to those ungrateful, stupid brat hippies who assisted in moronic things such as the Civil Rights movement.  Bush only had a 38% approval rating shortly before the 2004 election (in October) from 18-29 year olds.  Overall? 51%. 53% of voters in 2004 who were 30-44 voted for Bush.  51% of voters who were 45-59 also voted for Bush.  Great job there.

Not my point at all Vandy Vol, with all due respect.  Twenty-somethings, young white males, and first time voters were not the only reason we have The ONE but they were undeniably a large part of it.  You can put words in my mouth and attack me for participating in electing Bush all you want but that is the truth about The ONE.

I don't care how old or young this particular administration is, they and their socialist, Keynesian, Progressive agenda are wrong for this country and so are the rest of the socialist Democrats that were elected in 2006 and 2008.  AND that's not to imply that the Republicans have all the answers either by the way; especially the neo-Cons who I've been mightily critical of on this board; it is undeniable too that Bush set us on the bailout course before he left office. 

Anyway, like LT wrote it's all about power and control for these clowns; but that's beside the point of this thread too which is why a radio station changed it's format.  It happens all the time.

Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk!   

[GH2001]

BTW - I love the offseason!!  

When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".

You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.

Yes - THAT generation is the one who put these loons in power. And those loons who are all middle aged now AWK? As Kaos said - they were THAT generation in the 60's/70's. Makes absolute perfect sense.

[Lurking Tiger]

Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk!   

[AUChizad]

BTW - I love the offseason!!  

When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".

You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.

Yes - THAT generation is the one who put these loons in power. And those loons who are all middle aged now AWK? As Kaos said - they were THAT generation in the 60's/70's. Makes absolute perfect sense.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.

Watch it.

[GH2001]

Penn & Teller's Bullpoop Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.

Watch it.

I will take the good old days over the new bad days anytime. 

Isnt the offseason great? 

[Vandy Vol]

Not my point at all Vandy Vol, with all due respect.  Twenty-somethings, young white males, and first time voters were not the only reason we have The ONE but they were undeniably a large part of it.  You can put words in my mouth and attack me for participating in electing Bush all you want but that is the truth about The ONE.

I never put words in your mouth; I simply provided the numbers to disprove your point, which was:

They certainly weren't outvoted in the last presidential election.

My numbers show that young voters (18-29) were only 13% of the voting population that voted for Obama.  53% of the voting population voted for Obama.  Thus, 40% of the voting population who voted for Obama were not of our generation.  40% > 13%, so yes, we were outvoted; the larger population of the older generations often leads us to being outvoted in numbers.  We played a part, yes.  And if you want to argue that 13% was a large part, then yes, we played a large part.  However, the 40% of votes from older generations played an even larger part.

I don't care how old or young this particular administration is, they and their socialist, Keynesian, Progressive agenda are wrong for this country and so are the rest of the socialist Democrats that were elected in 2006 and 2008.

Kenya is a representative democratic republic.  That doesn't really fit with the adjectives "progressive" (speaking of the theoretical/traditional definition of progressivism) and "socialist."

Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk!   

I only wanted to lay in the sun and listen to my indie music.  

[wreckingball]

America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.

[AWK]

America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.

I know this is sarcasm, but it's fascism.  Dammit Jeff.

[GH2001]

America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.

Was about to ask if you were being seriously sarcastic.

The "Hoover caused the GD because of his damn laisse fair capitalistic policies" Myth is one of the greatest tales of all time. And its sad that its being taught in schools....FDR did much to cause it and purposely prolong it.

[AUChizad]

Kenya is a representative democratic republic.  That doesn't really fit with the adjectives "progressive" (speaking of the theoretical/traditional definition of progressivism) and "socialist."

Had to stop you there.

Keynesian, not Kenyan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

[Kaos]

Penn & Teller's Bullshit Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.

Watch it.

Your core of understanding comes from South Park, John Stewart, Family Guy and Penn & Teller.

You have no idea how much this confirms and explains.

Serious question, no flame: Have you ever had a real job? Have you ever had to make your own way or support others on what you were able to earn? Not condemning if you haven't. But your answer could go to perception and mindset.

[Kaos]

America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.

I sincerely hope sarcasm was your intent. Otherwise the ignorant irony here is pungent.

[GH2001]

Had to stop you there.

Keynesian, not Kenyan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Yes - John Maynard Keynes, a seriously fucked up in the head economist from England.

Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises adhere the best to the way our Constitution is written. This is why I like Ron Paul.

[Vandy Vol]

When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".

I'm going to have to point you to my responses to Tarheel.  In summation, the 18-29 year old voters only made up 13% of Obama's votes; the other 40% came from older generations.  Yes, our generation played a part, but we were hardly the reason for Obama's election.

You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....

Yes, quality of life has greatly decreased, which is why the average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony, and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood.  Meanwhile, nowadays, the average lifespan is 74 years.  Quality of life has clearly taken a sharp downturn over the years.

During the crash of 1893, unemployment was around 20%. There were no food stamps, no welfare and no medical assistance. You were on your own, left with the kindness of strangers.  Modern American industry started around 1830.  Over these past 180 years, we have had one difficulty followed by good times, then another rough patch followed by another smooth patch, so on and so on.  Just as with most things, various measurements of our success are going to be cyclical.

As far as crime rates, that has been decreasing, at least in regard to violent crimes.  The FBI only kept up with data since 1960, so there's no real way to compare the crime rates of the 1800s to now.  You also have to consider that technology has allowed us to catch and convict more criminals, whereas in the 1800s many crimes went unpunished due to an inability to identify the culprit.

The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.

Progressivism in the United States came about during the 1880s to 1920s.  There was even a Progressive Party in 1912 that was founded by Theodore Roosevelt.  Ever heard of the roaring 20s?  We successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, much of this due to the progressive leaders at the time.



Yes, the Great Depression occurred shortly after in 1929, but even economic scholars can't agree on the cause.  Those who believe in a large role for the state in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem.

Regardless, much of our success and failure is always going to be cyclical.

[Vandy Vol]

Had to stop you there.

Keynesian, not Kenyan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

I just now noticed that; transposed the Y and N, and was wondering why he was referring to anything Kenyan as "Kenyesian."

[jadennis]

, just wanted to point out one thing about how you were comparing the under 30 people voting for Bush in 2004.  It may have been 53% of the people that age that happened to vote in 2004, but in 2008, 64% of the 18-24 year olds, and 43% of 18-29 were first time voters.  Meaning, this wasn't the same group of people just changing their minds from 2004 to 2008.  This was largely a new group that voted for Obama that had not voted at all previously.  A new group with a different philosophy.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I was looking around at some voting numbers....since it had become fashionable in some of our posts...and I found something really interesting....something that doesn't make too much sense to me, but maybe someone here can help me get it.

The following is for young voters, 18-29.

Of whites, only 29% of the voters consider themselves "liberal", yet 54% of them voted for Obama.
Of African Americans, only 33% consider themselves "liberal", yet 95% voted for Obama.
Of Hispanics, 41% consider themselves "liberal", yet 76% of them voted for Obama.

Overall, 32% of these voters consider themselves "liberal", and 45% consider themselves a Democrat, yet 68% voted for Obama.

I guess my two inclinations are that  A. it was a huge "backlash" vote against the "old white guy" status-quo in Washington, and  B.  Obama was elected more on his celebrity status than anything else.

Ideas?

[Vandy Vol]

, just wanted to point out one thing about how you were comparing the under 30 people voting for Bush in 2004.  It may have been 53% of the people that age that happened to vote in 2004, but in 2008, 64% of the 18-24 year olds, and 43% of 18-29 were first time voters.  Meaning, this wasn't the same group of people just changing their minds from 2004 to 2008.  This was largely a new group that voted for Obama that had not voted at all previously.  A new group with a different philosophy.

This assumes that all of the new, young voters were coming out to vote for Obama.  Many of those were likely coming out to oppose Obama.  Now, I'm not saying that the majority of them was.  However, regardless of how many new voters there were in support of Obama, we were still outvoted.  Our generation only made up 13% of the vote for Obama; that was my point.  New voters or not, the older generations showed that they consistently have the majority of the voting power and play the largest part in deciding who is elected, as is evidenced by their votes making up 40% of Obama's votes.

I guess my two inclinations are that  A. it was a huge "backlash" vote against the "old white guy" status-quo in Washington, and  B.  Obama was elected more on his celebrity status than anything else.

Ideas?

The backlash theory is probably correct.  Additionally, I'd like to see polls that used the terms Democrat and Republican.  It may sound trivial, but people tend to identify themselves with a party easier than they do "liberal" or "conservative."  Identifying yourself with a party identifies yourself with people in that party, many of whom have both liberal and conservative ideas.  Saying you are liberal, however, gives the impression that you have only liberal ideas; this may be why people were hesitant to label themselves as such, but would still label themselves as a Democrat.