<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Oct 4 2004, 07:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 4 2004, 07:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Oct 4 2004, 04:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Oct 4 2004, 04:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder how many, not bush/not kerry votes there will be... I'm not registered and I will never register for one of your dirty little elections. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So long as you realize that if you don't vote, you have zero right to criticise our government, ever. You have a voice. If you don't use it to vote, you have no business using it to complain about something you could help change. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why should he vote when theres no canidate worth voting for? Our fantastic 2 party sytem doesn't allow for progressive change. Voting when you don't like any of the canidates does more harm then good, filling quotas for the sake of filling them isn't a very smart move. Its a shame you need to be ultra rich or at least a charismatic puppet to the 2 party process.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
edited October 2004
The quiz is oversimplified, and biased (agreement with all questions makes you a libertarian, which is the political movement that created the quiz in the first place). A less biased quiz would alternate liberal and conservative as the "agree" answers to get a more rounded picture.
That said, it's a quick shot and, frankly, is accurate. It takes a few nutshell issues that one side or the other overwhelmingly favors (e.g. privatizing health care) and gives you a glimpse of your political leaning. The only way to discover what you *really* think is to get involved in the poltical process.
The quote is a statistically correct generalization. It has no subtlety or nuance, and as such is at most as useful/correct as the quiz.
On a side note, what happens to 20-year-old conservatives when they age? Do they become fascists? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should he vote when theres no canidate worth voting for? Our fantastic 2 party sytem doesn't allow for progressive change. Voting when you don't like any of the canidates does more harm then good, filling quotas for the sake of filling them isn't a very smart move. Its a shame you need to be ultra rich or at least a charismatic puppet to the 2 party process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree that our system is flawed. My girlfriend is a Libertarian, and voted as such in 2000 and will again in November. She is *very* politically informed and hates both the candidates... but she believes the system can work, and so she participates in it.
3rd party candidates become bigger contenders every year - enough that the 2 major parties are scared of them this time around (e.g. Nader hurting Kerry). Personally, I'd like to see instant-runoff voting, where you rank the candidates instead of choose one. But I have a feeling that *some* electoral overhaul will occur soon. People are tired of the two-party system, and it's showing its age.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 09:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 09:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Oct 4 2004, 08:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Oct 4 2004, 08:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 12:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've never seen someone go from conservative to liberal, but I have seen plenty go from liberal to conservative.
Wonder why that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've met quite a few. Meet more people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those who value economic freedom more than social freedom typically vote on the right. Its just a question of priorities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's only a matter of time before you learn that economic freedom = social freedom <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, they are in fact, completely different things.
Here, take this <a href='http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html' target='_blank'>short quiz</a>. Best I've seen for summarizing where you are politically in 5 seconds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Trust me, I meet a lot of people.
And that quiz is far too simplistic, but back to the point economic freedom = personal freedom. If you have money you can do just about anything the government bans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Man i sounded just like forlorn during high school, its pretty fun to look back on your past. Bush's greatest weapon is he is running as a republican, which isn't a bad ideal. Small government with states allowed to make the majority of their own choices. Bush is NOT that, Bush is a big government, bearuacracy man. Every time a problem appears he slaps together an overpayed team of "Experts" Bush is NOT republican, he is a neo-conservative and that is what makes him dangerous.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
There's a quote floating around in here that's been "paraphrased" quite a bit. Here's the original:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> - Winston Churchill
I realize this has nothing to do with the topic but it was driving me nuts. Also, Churchill has so many great quotes that it gives me a chance to spread more <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have taken more good from alcohol than alcohol has taken from me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and my personal favorite,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, if you're 18 years or older, go register. nuff said.
The point of me bringing up that quote time and again is that I'm so surprised such a mind-numblingly simple quote can hold so much truth to it.
As opposed to the quiz that multlano posted which was simple in that it lead you to pick answers towards a certain way for propaganda purposes, my quote was something said by a political power who not only understood politics far better than you probably ever will, but is also talking of a way of life. Older people are generally more conservative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, it's a rather insulting quote-- if someone disagrees with your political philosophy when they 'mature', that makes them stupid?
Now, to focus: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Older people are generally more conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, much as I love annecdotal evidence, there are those pesky things called 'facts' that sometimes get in the way:
For example, I found this at <a href='http://www.census.gov' target='_blank'>the Census Bureau's website</a>..
Granted, the data is from 1994 (I have yet to find an updated chart), but the trend is clear-- the percentage of self-identified Democrats <i>increases</i> with age. Now, it's <i>possible</i> that this has reversed in recent years, but considering that Democrats won the popular vote in both elections since then, it isn't <i>likely</i>.
Edit: I am aware that 'Democrat' and 'Republican' aren't directly analogous to 'Liberal' and 'Conservative', but it's as good a measuring stick as any.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Oct 4 2004, 03:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 4 2004, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting that more schooling = more conservative. Perhaps it's indirectly tied to wealth? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or more apt to save money and therefore less interested in Socialized healthcare and other similar programs?
One thing is for sure, college brings out the penny-pincher in the most gregarious of consumers.
Indirectly? Theres a reason for it. Its protecting their own interests. The only hardcore republicans I know are also soccer moms or wealthy people, the rest of the people I know mire about hating the nation. (They're also poor. My entire city is roughly 10% wealthy 20% middleclass 70% low income)
I have way hardcore Libertarian leanings, but I'm with the Republicans on this election because I'd rather have economic freedom over social freedom. If you think about it, it's nearly impossible to be free and to change the world without economic freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have way hardcore Libertarian leanings, but I'm with the Republicans on this election because I'd rather have economic freedom over social freedom.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not vote for someone who will give you both, rahter than going the "lesser of two evils" route? Seriously, I can't see how anyone could possibly think that our voting system isn't fubar when this kind of thinking is so prevelent.
And for the record, I entirely disagree. I'd much rather keep my right to burn the flag, say "**** you" to the president, have sex with people of either gender, and all that fun stuff than have a little more cash because I no longer have to pay for other peoples health care. It is my opinion that if you are trading your freedoms for money, you are a traitor.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 04:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And for the record, I entirely disagree. I'd much rather keep my right to burn the flag, say "**** you" to the president, have sex with people of either gender, and all that fun stuff than have a little more cash because I no longer have to pay for other peoples health care. It is my opinion that if you are trading your freedoms for money, you are a traitor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When you do not control your own economic output you are a slave.
Feel free to shout from the mountaintops your political ideals but when it comes down to it, if you are not free to choose your own destiny because you are shackled by your economic situation you really are not free at all.
The two are not mutally exclusive but you cannot have social freedom without economic freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The two are not mutally exclusive but you cannot have social freedom without economic freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how that is so. If I were ****, but weren't allowed to have sex with annother man, what good is all the money in the universe? Or if I collected items featuring satanic imagery, but were not alowed to buy said items?
I would say that it is not impossible to have one without the other. I would also say that social freedoms are infinitly more important.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 4 2004, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The two are not mutally exclusive but you cannot have social freedom without economic freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how that is so. If I were ****, but weren't allowed to have sex with annother man, what good is all the money in the universe? Or if I collected items featuring satanic imagery, but were not alowed to buy said items?
I would say that it is not impossible to have one without the other. I would also say that social freedoms are infinitly more important. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Name one poor progressive nation Skulkbait (I rest my case)
Next
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: I am aware that 'Democrat' and 'Republican' aren't directly analogous to 'Liberal' and 'Conservative', but it's as good a measuring stick as any.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, it's really not because people are voting for the popular president, so older people picking presidents not on party but on charecter is more of a conservative ideal, wouldn't you say? Charecter follows much in the idea of tradition than ideals, no?
But overall I'd have to say the census is a pretty good identicator older people aren't nessesarly conservative in America. Maybe they are in Britian <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Or maybe they've just gone senile.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting that more schooling = more conservative. Perhaps it's indirectly tied to wealth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or the realization that after going through college and trying so hard to make it, the government would take that away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man i sounded just like forlorn during high school, its pretty fun to look back on your past.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cept I'm in college. Anyhow, I started to come up with my understanding of my ideals since I was 14.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nah, it's really not because people are voting for the popular president, so older people picking presidents not on party but on charecter is more of a conservative ideal, wouldn't you say? Charecter follows much in the idea of tradition than ideals, no?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but that's assuming that people are predominately voting based on character alone, and not on which candidate they feel will best represent their ideals. And in Clinton's case, I'd think it's safe to say that many of his votes came <i>despite</i> his character.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or the realization that after going through college and trying so hard to make it, the government would take that away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, my college years made me keenly aware of how lucky I was to come from a caring, involved family, who nurtured all of my creative endeavors, encouraged me to read and blossom intellectually, and who were selfless enough to ensure that I could attend the college of my choice on their dime.
Understanding what a gift my upbringing was has definitely helped push certain aspects of my political ideal into the more progressive realm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah, but that's assuming that people are predominately voting based on character alone, and not on which candidate they feel will best represent their ideals. And in Clinton's case, I'd think it's safe to say that many of his votes came despite his character.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clinton was elected based on charecter, by far and large. The most famous of Clinton was him blowing on his horn. He was a likeable guy. Besides, this is in 1994, this is after the first Bush's failed term. So the tons of democrats coming out at the time of the poll is just from the majority of America voting for Clinton.
So really you can't hold the 1994 age graph too realistic. However, you can hold the whole trend of democrats moving to republicans true because it represents a few factors:
- Aging population of baby boomers (Think back to the winston churchill quote) - America moves in trends between republicans and democrats
That's what I saw when I looked at the graph, anyways. Good find though, I love the census
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, my college years made me keenly aware of how lucky I was to come from a caring, involved family, who nurtured all of my creative endeavors, encouraged me to read and blosson intellectually, and who were selfless enough to ensure that I could attend the college of my choice on their dime.
Understanding what a gift my upbringing was has definitely helped push certain aspects of my political ideal into the more progressive realm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Understanding my upbringing:
- My dad choose not to go to college, and became a millionare in his family buisness of selling paint. He sold so much paint in New England he won a trip to Europe. He said it was a nice place, btw. - However due to a buisiness deal gone sour, the buisness went under, the reagan depression at the time, he ended up with bankruptcy, I was 2 yrs old at the time - After my dad works it from poverty (going hungry some nights just to feed his two sons) to upper middle class (today) and has a small business.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Once, I was speaking with a friend of a friend, who was a hardcore Republican. We were discussing politics, and he mentioned that he had grown up poor (he was now a fairly successful stockbroker) after his father left his mother, and for a time they were on welfare. Shamed, his mother busted her butt, began taking classes, and vowed to never accept public assitance again. Soon, they were back to solid middle class status. He said that <i>that</i> was one of the things that drew him to the right-- the message of self-reliance. And because of that, he didn't support welfare/socialized support.
I pointed out the irony there-- that if his mother didn't have the financial slack allowed her by public assistance, she probably wouldn't have been able to take classes, and might never have recovered-- certainly, she wouldn't have recovered at such a rapid pace.
But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*.
At any rate, I'm somewhat naive, and have a hunch our federal government is kind of like in the movie 'Dave'. Remember the scene where he wants to find money to pay for the childrens' program, so he invites his accountant friend (Charles Grodin) over to examine the budget, who is absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of obvious and nonsensical waste that he finds, and immediately finds an easy way to pay for it?
Overly simplisitic, yes, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To bring this back on topic, I sent in my voter registration today. I had previously registered when I registered my car, but I've moved twice in the past year, so I figured it's better to be safe than sorry and sent one in with my latest address.
Boy, I am certainly going to rock the vote. In fact, I may even go so far as to get "jiggy" with the vote. Time will tell.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 4 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 4 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's a very inspirational story.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. ... But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*. ... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As you mentioned the trick will always be to keep the 'safety net' from turning into a hammock.
The median income per household in my city is below 30k Yet many people are able to grow beyond the limited means they started with here. It is not the people that use the social programs to succeed that draw my ire. It is those that use the programs and continue to fail to try. When you fail to sieze the opportunities that are presented to you I have little sympathy.
My main complaint is the utter lack of accountability when it comes to social programs. Once these programs are established it is nearly impossible to make any budget cuts or adjustements. Any politicial suggesting such is instantly labeled as a hater of the poor and evil conservative.
Imagine the proposed socialized healthcare system. I can only see it continuing to grow until the entire nation except for the wealthy has come to depend upon it. Industries do not fair well when confronted with a state subsidized competitor.
If it is unsuccessful or impractical, there will be almost no way of eliminating it or controling its bloat once it is created. My terrible fear is that a socialized healthcare system will become a cancer of the Federal budget.
Then again, I am an evil conservative and probably just want to screw the poor.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 5 2004, 02:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 5 2004, 02:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then again, I am an evil conservative and probably just want to screw the poor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I, of course, am a nefarious socialist who wants to lock the impoverished in a never ending cycle of dependency.
Funny how we both seem to want the same thing, though <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But indeed-- the problem with a great number of social programs isn't their goal, but their management and implementation.
Healthcare is a great concern of mine, and I'm not necessarily sold on government subsidized, universal healthcare-- but as a small business owner, let me tell you that in its current state, healthcare makes additional employees prohibitively expensive.
And, to varying degrees, we can thank: The drug industry, HMOs, hospital management, trial lawyers, our government, and, of course, who can forget the associated lobbyists?
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 4 2004, 10:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 4 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Healthcare is a great concern of mine, and I'm not necessarily sold on government subsidized, universal healthcare-- but as a small business owner, let me tell you that in its current state, healthcare makes additional employees prohibitively expensive.
And, to varying degrees, we can thank: The drug industry, HMOs, hospital management, trial lawyers, our government, and, of course, who can forget the associated lobbyists?
But that's certainly another discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't need to tell me <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I used to negotiate much higher salaries by opting out of healthcare packages (I was covered elsewhere)
I might limit criticism of hospital management as often they are the ones that actually have to show some fiscal responsibility. But like you said. That's another discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 4 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 4 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's a very inspirational story.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Once, I was speaking with a friend of a friend, who was a hardcore Republican. We were discussing politics, and he mentioned that he had grown up poor (he was now a fairly successful stockbroker) after his father left his mother, and for a time they were on welfare. Shamed, his mother busted her butt, began taking classes, and vowed to never accept public assitance again. Soon, they were back to solid middle class status. He said that <i>that</i> was one of the things that drew him to the right-- the message of self-reliance. And because of that, he didn't support welfare/socialized support.
I pointed out the irony there-- that if his mother didn't have the financial slack allowed her by public assistance, she probably wouldn't have been able to take classes, and might never have recovered-- certainly, she wouldn't have recovered at such a rapid pace.
But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*.
At any rate, I'm somewhat naive, and have a hunch our federal government is kind of like in the movie 'Dave'. Remember the scene where he wants to find money to pay for the childrens' program, so he invites his accountant friend (Charles Grodin) over to examine the budget, who is absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of obvious and nonsensical waste that he finds, and immediately finds an easy way to pay for it?
Overly simplisitic, yes, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To bring this back on topic, I sent in my voter registration today. I had previously registered when I registered my car, but I've moved twice in the past year, so I figured it's better to be safe than sorry and sent one in with my latest address.
Boy, I am certainly going to rock the vote. In fact, I may even go so far as to get "jiggy" with the vote. Time will tell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See, the difference between me and your friend is that I am a realist. My father too went on welfare.
For 6 months. It allowed him to feed me and my brother at the age of 2 and 1. My dad did not like it but he needed it, and I guess how welfare works is that you pay it back to the government over time.
He worked his butt off and he told me that he would have probably just given up had he not have two kids in dipers.
So do I hate welfare? No. Why would I? The problem is that yes, I do enjoy how wizard puts it - the safety net becomes a hammock. The realization however, is that welfare has the good and bad.
Being a true conservative that I am, I firmly believe in what Edmund Burke has to say about change, "Change alters a substance so that it removes all good and any accidental evil with it." "Reform is not a change of the substance of objects, but rather a direct application to the grievence complained of."
Welfare is a great program, but basically the reform it needs is a limit of 6 months or a year, depending on how hard your situation is. If you can't get your act together after a year, then you deserve to starve at that point. Hey it's harsh, but nessescity is the mother of all invention, and <i>innovation</i>, something which people who are coming out of a poor life need.
Yes self-reliance is key but I'm not stupid enough to ignore how our programs of today can help.
But I also believe that the more social programs you put into place, the more you hinder the ultimate outcome of a country or soceity. There is a price. Taxes actually limit growth. Taxes can be used for tasks that normally no one would ever support, such as welfare (imagine a company giving out loans to the despirately poor... a loan shark).
A national health care system on the other hand is completely and total bullcrap and would call for a complete change of our system today. Which coincidently is the best. Rich people from canada go the hospitals in America for any sort of serious treatment. Privitization makes the quality of ANYTHING 100x better because competition enforces high standards.
However, the real deal with a national health care system is that it's adressing how outrageously expensive our pills and perscription drugs are, because we basically have a tariff of sorts which doesn't allow drugs to be shipped into the USA, as they do not adhere to our FDA regulations or our government is somehow swayed by the drug lobbiests in Washington (I guess it's something like this).
The conservative capitalistic solution? (Or, in classic ideological terms, the <i>conservative liberal</i> (yes it really is a term)) You do NOT make our health care industry federalized. No No No No No No No. What you do, is allow candian drug companies ship into America. As a captitalist, I realize it will hurt our American economies at first, but in the long run things will be better overall as the standard for living increases with the competition canadian companies bring. And eventually, there will be bigger profit margins overall, for Canadian and American economies as competetion makes other things (such as advirtising and the creation of businesses) skyrocket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At any rate, I'm somewhat naive, and have a hunch our federal government is kind of like in the movie 'Dave'. Remember the scene where he wants to find money to pay for the childrens' program, so he invites his accountant friend (Charles Grodin) over to examine the budget, who is absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of obvious and nonsensical waste that he finds, and immediately finds an easy way to pay for it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
School Systems are notorious for this.
In my state of NH, our current governor basically worked to try and force public school systems in NH to be efficient with public funds by actually cutting the budget. Our state is the most free in the country, since we have:
1.) No income tax.
2.) No sales tax.
3.) A property tax that is comparable to neighboring states.
So, Benson cuts the budget, even with everyone complaining about not having enough money.
Benson was a very successful businessman, so that's his mentality. The problem he is running up against is that Public Funds are generally viewed as unlimited by many people. Therefore, beauracracy has this tendency to slow things down tremendously, even in the public school system. It also has a tendency of bringing down the quality of the service it provides.
Now Bathroom Monkey, one of the things you should note is the incredible amount of resources available to people who are broke that is not government provided. I'm not saying "let's drop all government social services," but I am all for limiting them.
I met a guy who works for a security company who bragged about getting a $2000 a month check for 12 months for something he didn't need for more than 6. That's an abuse of public funds in my book. Imagine him multiplied by the thousand, and you get the problem with how the government has set up social programs. Or did, before welfare reform got passed.
Also, in response to Skulkbait, Economic Freedom is something that allows Social Freedom. The government doesn't understand you yelling from a rooftop, and doesn't care to. The government cares intimately about your money. Losing economic power is a far larger blow than losing "the woman's right to choose." And Bush is going to keep economic freedom in check far better than Kerry would. Kerry's a Massachussetts Liberal at heart, and I fear what damage he would do than anything Bush could ever do, aside from launching nukes at Russia/China.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Oct 4 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 4 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Name one poor progressive nation Skulkbait (I rest my case) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I'm not Skulkbait, but, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, Indonesia (now), Poland (comparitively), Mexico, Haiti (having problems), Egypt.
Now it's your turn. Name one affluent regressive nation.
Social reform (<b>especially</b> education) is a precondition for material prosperity. You can't exploit wealth if you're unaware of it.
----
Time to be on topic. The media is talking all about battleground states. These are states where the vote between Bush/Kerry is close and particularly states with a lot of electoral votes. There's about 15 of them, you can probably find maps on the website of every major broadcast station.
The way our election works (the electoral college), if you're not in a battleground state, you're not going to hear much about your concerns. I live in a non-battleground state (Washington) where most of the people live in a big urban area and paint the ground blue so you can see it from space (they're liberals). If I vote Dem, big whoop, **** in the ocean etc. If I vote GOP, big whoop, can't stop a herd of ... donkeys (I almost said elephants how ironic).
So I'm going to vote third party. If everyone in every non-battleground state did the same, what kind of message would that send? Just my wishful thinking... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It seems this topic has veered away a bit.. I have a few thoughts about voter registration.. I am a bit hesitant to do this, but this is an essay I’m writing for a college application and I would like a little feedback on it. Since this was a topic about voter registration, I believe my essay has some relevance to this topic.
<i>Whenever I turn on the news, read publications or listen to the radio I am constantly bombarded with statistics and comments about how bad voter turnout is; how this downward trend “puts our democracy under jeopardy”. In response, there have been many pieces of legislation passed trying to simplify the process, such as the motor voter bill. Numerous ad campaigns launched at encouraging more voter turnout, ranging from TV to the basic billboard. Various interest groups have also stepped up to the plate encouraging more people to vote, specifically for their candidate. With all this promotional cheerleading going on, I always ask myself, “Do the people who chose not to vote really care about the real issues?”
There have been many theories out there by commentators and members of academia about why voter turnout has been so low: gerrymandering, complicated registration process, Electoral College, two party systems etc. The list is endless. In some circumstances some of those theories would prove true, but in my experience and observations, those theories only apply to a minority of non-voters. The majority of non-voters in my opinion simply don’t care and therefore choose not to vote. I support their decision.
If those who don’t vote put a higher priority at watching people eating a male bull’s “soft parts” rather then being informed about the issues, I hope they are entertained. Don’t vote. Those out there who put more importance in watching Johnny Knoxville abuse and inflict serious bodily harm centered around his **** or other shows that encourage various acts of gross stupidity then spending a mere 30 minutes to keep informed about what’s going on around you, I hope you have a good laugh. Do all of us a favor and don’t vote.
The 2004 election will bring in many returning and first time voters (such as myself just turning 18). I hope that all new and returning voters they take time to review the issues and really consider the repercussions of their vote, both positive and negative. I encourage and support everyone to vote that have reviewed the issue carefully, considered others viewpoints and have made up their own mind. I have respect for all well thought-out views even though they may disagree with me.
What I have a problem with is this; there are those who are going to vote because they were told who to vote for. All do respect, that is simply foolish. This country is a unique country in that it allows anyone to be a moron and vote accordingly, but it doesn’t mean they should.
If those out there are considering voting because some shock jock told them how to vote, I really hope they reconsider. Please don’t vote. Those voters out there are going to vote because it seems like it’s a new cool fad, please don’t. Those individuals out there are going to base their vote off some “stoned” rock stars going around the country telling who they need to vote for, I wish they would think twice and not vote at all. When Election Day comes and someone receives that ballot, they are asking what they, the individual thinks; not Bruise Springsteen, Alec Baldwin, Rush Limbah or Ann Coulter. I think all voters should take some time to research the issues that are important to them, keep relatively informed and when Election Day arrives, vote what their gut feeling tells them. If not, don’t vote at all
Our democracy has formed over thousands of years of human social evolution through wars, revolutions and human blood. Voting is not some trivial matter to be taken lightly; it should be treated with a sense of utmost responsibility and privilege. Those who think otherwise and take this right trivially, should be ashamed.</i>
If you even bothered to read it, I have 5 questions..
1)this appropriate for a college application essay? 2)Any writing convention errors you see? (This is my first draft) 3) Does it flow well? 4)Do you think college administrators will like it? 5)Do you think my attitude toward this subject is misguided and absurd?
1) I would leave out the genitals. 2) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I have a problem with is this; there are those who are going to vote because they were told who to vote for. All do respect, that is simply foolish. This country is a unique country in that it allows anyone to be a moron and vote accordingly, but it doesn’t mean they should.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should be "All <b>due</b> respect". Apart from that, it's good, as far as I can see. Then again, it's 8am here, so I'm not at my most perceptive.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
1. Not sure if it's appropriate as I've never had to apply this way
2. Errors/Changes
*Remove "The list is endless" from paragraph 2. *Paragraph 3 changes the audience (the concept of who you expect to read this). Either write to the non-voters or write about them. If you're going to send a direct message, say so. *Avoid cliches such as "with all due respect". They are unnecessary. *Avoid "that" and "those" unless you can specifically identify their source in a sentence. Example: "...that is simply foolish" Rephrase the source instead of using "that". *Beware of Tense. A difficult concept but when you can control it in your writing, English professors will love you. Here's a quick site <a href='http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/consistency.htm' target='_blank'>to explain tense.</a>
3. It flows but be careful with any hyperbole.
4. Probably not. You've summarized way too much individual responsibility. Sorry, but they usually find that offensive or hostile. Be aware.
5. No. This is an opinion piece not a research paper.
Good luck <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 4. Probably not. You've summarized way too much individual responsibility. Sorry, but they usually find that offensive or hostile. Be aware. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, i'm guessing you are refering to ultra liberal universities and admission officers?
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 11 2004, 06:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 11 2004, 06:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 4. Probably not. You've summarized way too much individual responsibility. Sorry, but they usually find that offensive or hostile. Be aware. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, i'm guessing you are refering to ultra liberal universities and admission officers? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd assume that whether or not they agree with your point, your essay would be a lot more well recieved if you included a couple concrete examples of people not caring about the issues but voted because Howard Stern told them to.
Also, it seems like you have two essays on the same subject. The second starts with "<i>The 2004 election will bring in many returning and first time voters</i>."
There are some grammatical errors scattered here and there.
<i>I hope that all new and returning voters <b>they</b> take time to review the issues</i> (remove they)
<i>I encourage and support everyone to vote that <b>have</b> reviewed the issue carefully</i> (should be has)
In response to your last question, experience I have getting my friends to vote tells me that people who go through the process once and suffer through the embarrassment of looking at their ballot and not knowing who the crap all those people are usually end up being responsible voters the next time around. My friends that never really cared about the issues generally never voted.
Comments
So long as you realize that if you don't vote, you have zero right to criticise our government, ever. You have a voice. If you don't use it to vote, you have no business using it to complain about something you could help change. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why should he vote when theres no canidate worth voting for? Our fantastic 2 party sytem doesn't allow for progressive change. Voting when you don't like any of the canidates does more harm then good, filling quotas for the sake of filling them isn't a very smart move. Its a shame you need to be ultra rich or at least a charismatic puppet to the 2 party process.
That said, it's a quick shot and, frankly, is accurate. It takes a few nutshell issues that one side or the other overwhelmingly favors (e.g. privatizing health care) and gives you a glimpse of your political leaning. The only way to discover what you *really* think is to get involved in the poltical process.
The quote is a statistically correct generalization. It has no subtlety or nuance, and as such is at most as useful/correct as the quiz.
On a side note, what happens to 20-year-old conservatives when they age? Do they become fascists? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why should he vote when theres no canidate worth voting for? Our fantastic 2 party sytem doesn't allow for progressive change. Voting when you don't like any of the canidates does more harm then good, filling quotas for the sake of filling them isn't a very smart move. Its a shame you need to be ultra rich or at least a charismatic puppet to the 2 party process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that our system is flawed. My girlfriend is a Libertarian, and voted as such in 2000 and will again in November. She is *very* politically informed and hates both the candidates... but she believes the system can work, and so she participates in it.
3rd party candidates become bigger contenders every year - enough that the 2 major parties are scared of them this time around (e.g. Nader hurting Kerry). Personally, I'd like to see instant-runoff voting, where you rank the candidates instead of choose one. But I have a feeling that *some* electoral overhaul will occur soon. People are tired of the two-party system, and it's showing its age.
Wonder why that is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've met quite a few. Meet more people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Those who value economic freedom more than social freedom typically vote on the right. Its just a question of priorities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's only a matter of time before you learn that economic freedom = social freedom
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, they are in fact, completely different things.
Here, take this <a href='http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html' target='_blank'>short quiz</a>. Best I've seen for summarizing where you are politically in 5 seconds. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trust me, I meet a lot of people.
And that quiz is far too simplistic, but back to the point economic freedom = personal freedom. If you have money you can do just about anything the government bans. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man i sounded just like forlorn during high school, its pretty fun to look back on your past. Bush's greatest weapon is he is running as a republican, which isn't a bad ideal. Small government with states allowed to make the majority of their own choices. Bush is NOT that, Bush is a big government, bearuacracy man. Every time a problem appears he slaps together an overpayed team of "Experts" Bush is NOT republican, he is a neo-conservative and that is what makes him dangerous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Winston Churchill
I realize this has nothing to do with the topic but it was driving me nuts. Also, Churchill has so many great quotes that it gives me a chance to spread more <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're going through hell, keep going. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have taken more good from alcohol than alcohol has taken from me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and my personal favorite,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah, if you're 18 years or older, go register. nuff said.
The point of me bringing up that quote time and again is that I'm so surprised such a mind-numblingly simple quote can hold so much truth to it.
As opposed to the quiz that multlano posted which was simple in that it lead you to pick answers towards a certain way for propaganda purposes, my quote was something said by a political power who not only understood politics far better than you probably ever will, but is also talking of a way of life. Older people are generally more conservative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, it's a rather insulting quote-- if someone disagrees with your political philosophy when they 'mature', that makes them stupid?
Now, to focus:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Older people are generally more conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, much as I love annecdotal evidence, there are those pesky things called 'facts' that sometimes get in the way:
For example, I found this at <a href='http://www.census.gov' target='_blank'>the Census Bureau's website</a>..
Granted, the data is from 1994 (I have yet to find an updated chart), but the trend is clear-- the percentage of self-identified Democrats <i>increases</i> with age. Now, it's <i>possible</i> that this has reversed in recent years, but considering that Democrats won the popular vote in both elections since then, it isn't <i>likely</i>.
Edit: I am aware that 'Democrat' and 'Republican' aren't directly analogous to 'Liberal' and 'Conservative', but it's as good a measuring stick as any.
Or more apt to save money and therefore less interested in Socialized healthcare and other similar programs?
One thing is for sure, college brings out the penny-pincher in the most gregarious of consumers.
I have way hardcore Libertarian leanings, but I'm with the Republicans on this election because I'd rather have economic freedom over social freedom. If you think about it, it's nearly impossible to be free and to change the world without economic freedom.
It's the economy, stupid.
Why not vote for someone who will give you both, rahter than going the "lesser of two evils" route? Seriously, I can't see how anyone could possibly think that our voting system isn't fubar when this kind of thinking is so prevelent.
And for the record, I entirely disagree. I'd much rather keep my right to burn the flag, say "**** you" to the president, have sex with people of either gender, and all that fun stuff than have a little more cash because I no longer have to pay for other peoples health care. It is my opinion that if you are trading your freedoms for money, you are a traitor.
And for the record, I entirely disagree. I'd much rather keep my right to burn the flag, say "**** you" to the president, have sex with people of either gender, and all that fun stuff than have a little more cash because I no longer have to pay for other peoples health care. It is my opinion that if you are trading your freedoms for money, you are a traitor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you do not control your own economic output you are a slave.
Feel free to shout from the mountaintops your political ideals but when it comes down to it, if you are not free to choose your own destiny because you are shackled by your economic situation you really are not free at all.
The two are not mutally exclusive but you cannot have social freedom without economic freedom.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how that is so. If I were ****, but weren't allowed to have sex with annother man, what good is all the money in the universe? Or if I collected items featuring satanic imagery, but were not alowed to buy said items?
I would say that it is not impossible to have one without the other. I would also say that social freedoms are infinitly more important.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how that is so. If I were ****, but weren't allowed to have sex with annother man, what good is all the money in the universe? Or if I collected items featuring satanic imagery, but were not alowed to buy said items?
I would say that it is not impossible to have one without the other. I would also say that social freedoms are infinitly more important. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Name one poor progressive nation Skulkbait (I rest my case)
Next
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Edit: I am aware that 'Democrat' and 'Republican' aren't directly analogous to 'Liberal' and 'Conservative', but it's as good a measuring stick as any.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, it's really not because people are voting for the popular president, so older people picking presidents not on party but on charecter is more of a conservative ideal, wouldn't you say? Charecter follows much in the idea of tradition than ideals, no?
But overall I'd have to say the census is a pretty good identicator older people aren't nessesarly conservative in America. Maybe they are in Britian <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Or maybe they've just gone senile.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting that more schooling = more conservative. Perhaps it's indirectly tied to wealth?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or the realization that after going through college and trying so hard to make it, the government would take that away.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Man i sounded just like forlorn during high school, its pretty fun to look back on your past.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cept I'm in college. Anyhow, I started to come up with my understanding of my ideals since I was 14.
Yeah, but that's assuming that people are predominately voting based on character alone, and not on which candidate they feel will best represent their ideals. And in Clinton's case, I'd think it's safe to say that many of his votes came <i>despite</i> his character.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or the realization that after going through college and trying so hard to make it, the government would take that away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, my college years made me keenly aware of how lucky I was to come from a caring, involved family, who nurtured all of my creative endeavors, encouraged me to read and blossom intellectually, and who were selfless enough to ensure that I could attend the college of my choice on their dime.
Understanding what a gift my upbringing was has definitely helped push certain aspects of my political ideal into the more progressive realm.
Yeah, but that's assuming that people are predominately voting based on character alone, and not on which candidate they feel will best represent their ideals. And in Clinton's case, I'd think it's safe to say that many of his votes came despite his character.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clinton was elected based on charecter, by far and large. The most famous of Clinton was him blowing on his horn. He was a likeable guy. Besides, this is in 1994, this is after the first Bush's failed term. So the tons of democrats coming out at the time of the poll is just from the majority of America voting for Clinton.
So really you can't hold the 1994 age graph too realistic. However, you can hold the whole trend of democrats moving to republicans true because it represents a few factors:
- Aging population of baby boomers (Think back to the winston churchill quote)
- America moves in trends between republicans and democrats
That's what I saw when I looked at the graph, anyways. Good find though, I love the census
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, my college years made me keenly aware of how lucky I was to come from a caring, involved family, who nurtured all of my creative endeavors, encouraged me to read and blosson intellectually, and who were selfless enough to ensure that I could attend the college of my choice on their dime.
Understanding what a gift my upbringing was has definitely helped push certain aspects of my political ideal into the more progressive realm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Understanding my upbringing:
- My dad choose not to go to college, and became a millionare in his family buisness of selling paint. He sold so much paint in New England he won a trip to Europe. He said it was a nice place, btw.
- However due to a buisiness deal gone sour, the buisness went under, the reagan depression at the time, he ended up with bankruptcy, I was 2 yrs old at the time
- After my dad works it from poverty (going hungry some nights just to feed his two sons) to upper middle class (today) and has a small business.
What I've learned:
God bless capitalism.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Once, I was speaking with a friend of a friend, who was a hardcore Republican. We were discussing politics, and he mentioned that he had grown up poor (he was now a fairly successful stockbroker) after his father left his mother, and for a time they were on welfare. Shamed, his mother busted her butt, began taking classes, and vowed to never accept public assitance again. Soon, they were back to solid middle class status. He said that <i>that</i> was one of the things that drew him to the right-- the message of self-reliance. And because of that, he didn't support welfare/socialized support.
I pointed out the irony there-- that if his mother didn't have the financial slack allowed her by public assistance, she probably wouldn't have been able to take classes, and might never have recovered-- certainly, she wouldn't have recovered at such a rapid pace.
But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*.
At any rate, I'm somewhat naive, and have a hunch our federal government is kind of like in the movie 'Dave'. Remember the scene where he wants to find money to pay for the childrens' program, so he invites his accountant friend (Charles Grodin) over to examine the budget, who is absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of obvious and nonsensical waste that he finds, and immediately finds an easy way to pay for it?
Overly simplisitic, yes, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To bring this back on topic, I sent in my voter registration today. I had previously registered when I registered my car, but I've moved twice in the past year, so I figured it's better to be safe than sorry and sent one in with my latest address.
Boy, I am certainly going to rock the vote. In fact, I may even go so far as to get "jiggy" with the vote. Time will tell.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
...
But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*.
... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As you mentioned the trick will always be to keep the 'safety net' from turning into a hammock.
The median income per household in my city is below 30k Yet many people are able to grow beyond the limited means they started with here. It is not the people that use the social programs to succeed that draw my ire. It is those that use the programs and continue to fail to try. When you fail to sieze the opportunities that are presented to you I have little sympathy.
My main complaint is the utter lack of accountability when it comes to social programs. Once these programs are established it is nearly impossible to make any budget cuts or adjustements. Any politicial suggesting such is instantly labeled as a hater of the poor and evil conservative.
Imagine the proposed socialized healthcare system. I can only see it continuing to grow until the entire nation except for the wealthy has come to depend upon it. Industries do not fair well when confronted with a state subsidized competitor.
If it is unsuccessful or impractical, there will be almost no way of eliminating it or controling its bloat once it is created. My terrible fear is that a socialized healthcare system will become a cancer of the Federal budget.
Then again, I am an evil conservative and probably just want to screw the poor.
And I, of course, am a nefarious socialist who wants to lock the impoverished in a never ending cycle of dependency.
Funny how we both seem to want the same thing, though <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
But indeed-- the problem with a great number of social programs isn't their goal, but their management and implementation.
Healthcare is a great concern of mine, and I'm not necessarily sold on government subsidized, universal healthcare-- but as a small business owner, let me tell you that in its current state, healthcare makes additional employees prohibitively expensive.
And, to varying degrees, we can thank: The drug industry, HMOs, hospital management, trial lawyers, our government, and, of course, who can forget the associated lobbyists?
But that's certainly another discussion.
Healthcare is a great concern of mine, and I'm not necessarily sold on government subsidized, universal healthcare-- but as a small business owner, let me tell you that in its current state, healthcare makes additional employees prohibitively expensive.
And, to varying degrees, we can thank: The drug industry, HMOs, hospital management, trial lawyers, our government, and, of course, who can forget the associated lobbyists?
But that's certainly another discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't need to tell me <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I used to negotiate much higher salaries by opting out of healthcare packages (I was covered elsewhere)
I might limit criticism of hospital management as often they are the ones that actually have to show some fiscal responsibility. But like you said. That's another discussion.
And that's precisely <i>why</i> I support some socialization-- I think it's in society's best interests to offer a safety net for individuals and families that have fallen on hard times, in order to make their difficulties as temporary as possible.
Any program that offers training, education, or a period of financial support to those who are attempting to better their lives is a fine way to spend my tax money, as far as I'm concerned. It's a noble goal, and it also pays dividends-- in future taxable earnings.
Now, of course, I believe there have to be limits on such programs, in order to remove any incentive to stay on the public teat (which makes me think of the Ali G interview with [I think] Newt Gingrich, where he kept asking why people on welfare for long periods of time don't get raises because of their seniority. <i>Priceless</i>). But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
Once, I was speaking with a friend of a friend, who was a hardcore Republican. We were discussing politics, and he mentioned that he had grown up poor (he was now a fairly successful stockbroker) after his father left his mother, and for a time they were on welfare. Shamed, his mother busted her butt, began taking classes, and vowed to never accept public assitance again. Soon, they were back to solid middle class status. He said that <i>that</i> was one of the things that drew him to the right-- the message of self-reliance. And because of that, he didn't support welfare/socialized support.
I pointed out the irony there-- that if his mother didn't have the financial slack allowed her by public assistance, she probably wouldn't have been able to take classes, and might never have recovered-- certainly, she wouldn't have recovered at such a rapid pace.
But the point was more or less lost on him. His new mantra was self-reliance, self-reliance, self-reliance. *Shrug*.
At any rate, I'm somewhat naive, and have a hunch our federal government is kind of like in the movie 'Dave'. Remember the scene where he wants to find money to pay for the childrens' program, so he invites his accountant friend (Charles Grodin) over to examine the budget, who is absolutely dumbfounded by the amount of obvious and nonsensical waste that he finds, and immediately finds an easy way to pay for it?
Overly simplisitic, yes, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To bring this back on topic, I sent in my voter registration today. I had previously registered when I registered my car, but I've moved twice in the past year, so I figured it's better to be safe than sorry and sent one in with my latest address.
Boy, I am certainly going to rock the vote. In fact, I may even go so far as to get "jiggy" with the vote. Time will tell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, the difference between me and your friend is that I am a realist. My father too went on welfare.
For 6 months. It allowed him to feed me and my brother at the age of 2 and 1. My dad did not like it but he needed it, and I guess how welfare works is that you pay it back to the government over time.
He worked his butt off and he told me that he would have probably just given up had he not have two kids in dipers.
So do I hate welfare? No. Why would I? The problem is that yes, I do enjoy how wizard puts it - the safety net becomes a hammock. The realization however, is that welfare has the good and bad.
Being a true conservative that I am, I firmly believe in what Edmund Burke has to say about change, "Change alters a substance so that it removes all good and any accidental evil with it." "Reform is not a change of the substance of objects, but rather a direct application to the grievence complained of."
Welfare is a great program, but basically the reform it needs is a limit of 6 months or a year, depending on how hard your situation is. If you can't get your act together after a year, then you deserve to starve at that point. Hey it's harsh, but nessescity is the mother of all invention, and <i>innovation</i>, something which people who are coming out of a poor life need.
Yes self-reliance is key but I'm not stupid enough to ignore how our programs of today can help.
But I also believe that the more social programs you put into place, the more you hinder the ultimate outcome of a country or soceity. There is a price. Taxes actually limit growth. Taxes can be used for tasks that normally no one would ever support, such as welfare (imagine a company giving out loans to the despirately poor... a loan shark).
A national health care system on the other hand is completely and total bullcrap and would call for a complete change of our system today. Which coincidently is the best. Rich people from canada go the hospitals in America for any sort of serious treatment. Privitization makes the quality of ANYTHING 100x better because competition enforces high standards.
However, the real deal with a national health care system is that it's adressing how outrageously expensive our pills and perscription drugs are, because we basically have a tariff of sorts which doesn't allow drugs to be shipped into the USA, as they do not adhere to our FDA regulations or our government is somehow swayed by the drug lobbiests in Washington (I guess it's something like this).
The conservative capitalistic solution? (Or, in classic ideological terms, the <i>conservative liberal</i> (yes it really is a term)) You do NOT make our health care industry federalized. No No No No No No No. What you do, is allow candian drug companies ship into America. As a captitalist, I realize it will hurt our American economies at first, but in the long run things will be better overall as the standard for living increases with the competition canadian companies bring. And eventually, there will be bigger profit margins overall, for Canadian and American economies as competetion makes other things (such as advirtising and the creation of businesses) skyrocket.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
School Systems are notorious for this.
In my state of NH, our current governor basically worked to try and force public school systems in NH to be efficient with public funds by actually cutting the budget. Our state is the most free in the country, since we have:
1.) No income tax.
2.) No sales tax.
3.) A property tax that is comparable to neighboring states.
So, Benson cuts the budget, even with everyone complaining about not having enough money.
Benson was a very successful businessman, so that's his mentality. The problem he is running up against is that Public Funds are generally viewed as unlimited by many people. Therefore, beauracracy has this tendency to slow things down tremendously, even in the public school system. It also has a tendency of bringing down the quality of the service it provides.
Now Bathroom Monkey, one of the things you should note is the incredible amount of resources available to people who are broke that is not government provided. I'm not saying "let's drop all government social services," but I am all for limiting them.
I met a guy who works for a security company who bragged about getting a $2000 a month check for 12 months for something he didn't need for more than 6. That's an abuse of public funds in my book. Imagine him multiplied by the thousand, and you get the problem with how the government has set up social programs. Or did, before welfare reform got passed.
Also, in response to Skulkbait, Economic Freedom is something that allows Social Freedom. The government doesn't understand you yelling from a rooftop, and doesn't care to. The government cares intimately about your money. Losing economic power is a far larger blow than losing "the woman's right to choose." And Bush is going to keep economic freedom in check far better than Kerry would. Kerry's a Massachussetts Liberal at heart, and I fear what damage he would do than anything Bush could ever do, aside from launching nukes at Russia/China.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I'm not Skulkbait, but, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, Indonesia (now), Poland (comparitively), Mexico, Haiti (having problems), Egypt.
Now it's your turn. Name one affluent regressive nation.
Social reform (<b>especially</b> education) is a precondition for material prosperity. You can't exploit wealth if you're unaware of it.
----
Time to be on topic. The media is talking all about battleground states. These are states where the vote between Bush/Kerry is close and particularly states with a lot of electoral votes. There's about 15 of them, you can probably find maps on the website of every major broadcast station.
The way our election works (the electoral college), if you're not in a battleground state, you're not going to hear much about your concerns. I live in a non-battleground state (Washington) where most of the people live in a big urban area and paint the ground blue so you can see it from space (they're liberals). If I vote Dem, big whoop, **** in the ocean etc. If I vote GOP, big whoop, can't stop a herd of ... donkeys (I almost said elephants how ironic).
So I'm going to vote third party. If everyone in every non-battleground state did the same, what kind of message would that send? Just my wishful thinking... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<i>Whenever I turn on the news, read publications or listen to the radio I am constantly bombarded with statistics and comments about how bad voter turnout is; how this downward trend “puts our democracy under jeopardy”. In response, there have been many pieces of legislation passed trying to simplify the process, such as the motor voter bill. Numerous ad campaigns launched at encouraging more voter turnout, ranging from TV to the basic billboard. Various interest groups have also stepped up to the plate encouraging more people to vote, specifically for their candidate. With all this promotional cheerleading going on, I always ask myself, “Do the people who chose not to vote really care about the real issues?”
There have been many theories out there by commentators and members of academia about why voter turnout has been so low: gerrymandering, complicated registration process, Electoral College, two party systems etc. The list is endless. In some circumstances some of those theories would prove true, but in my experience and observations, those theories only apply to a minority of non-voters. The majority of non-voters in my opinion simply don’t care and therefore choose not to vote. I support their decision.
If those who don’t vote put a higher priority at watching people eating a male bull’s “soft parts” rather then being informed about the issues, I hope they are entertained. Don’t vote. Those out there who put more importance in watching Johnny Knoxville abuse and inflict serious bodily harm centered around his **** or other shows that encourage various acts of gross stupidity then spending a mere 30 minutes to keep informed about what’s going on around you, I hope you have a good laugh. Do all of us a favor and don’t vote.
The 2004 election will bring in many returning and first time voters (such as myself just turning 18). I hope that all new and returning voters they take time to review the issues and really consider the repercussions of their vote, both positive and negative. I encourage and support everyone to vote that have reviewed the issue carefully, considered others viewpoints and have made up their own mind. I have respect for all well thought-out views even though they may disagree with me.
What I have a problem with is this; there are those who are going to vote because they were told who to vote for. All do respect, that is simply foolish. This country is a unique country in that it allows anyone to be a moron and vote accordingly, but it doesn’t mean they should.
If those out there are considering voting because some shock jock told them how to vote, I really hope they reconsider. Please don’t vote. Those voters out there are going to vote because it seems like it’s a new cool fad, please don’t. Those individuals out there are going to base their vote off some “stoned” rock stars going around the country telling who they need to vote for, I wish they would think twice and not vote at all. When Election Day comes and someone receives that ballot, they are asking what they, the individual thinks; not Bruise Springsteen, Alec Baldwin, Rush Limbah or Ann Coulter. I think all voters should take some time to research the issues that are important to them, keep relatively informed and when Election Day arrives, vote what their gut feeling tells them. If not, don’t vote at all
Our democracy has formed over thousands of years of human social evolution through wars, revolutions and human blood. Voting is not some trivial matter to be taken lightly; it should be treated with a sense of utmost responsibility and privilege. Those who think otherwise and take this right trivially, should be ashamed.</i>
If you even bothered to read it, I have 5 questions..
1)this appropriate for a college application essay?
2)Any writing convention errors you see? (This is my first draft)
3) Does it flow well?
4)Do you think college administrators will like it?
5)Do you think my attitude toward this subject is misguided and absurd?
2) <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I have a problem with is this; there are those who are going to vote because they were told who to vote for. All do respect, that is simply foolish. This country is a unique country in that it allows anyone to be a moron and vote accordingly, but it doesn’t mean they should.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should be "All <b>due</b> respect". Apart from that, it's good, as far as I can see. Then again, it's 8am here, so I'm not at my most perceptive.
2. Errors/Changes
*Remove "The list is endless" from paragraph 2.
*Paragraph 3 changes the audience (the concept of who you expect to read this). Either write to the non-voters or write about them. If you're going to send a direct message, say so.
*Avoid cliches such as "with all due respect". They are unnecessary.
*Avoid "that" and "those" unless you can specifically identify their source in a sentence. Example: "...that is simply foolish" Rephrase the source instead of using "that".
*Beware of Tense. A difficult concept but when you can control it in your writing, English professors will love you. Here's a quick site <a href='http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/consistency.htm' target='_blank'>to explain tense.</a>
3. It flows but be careful with any hyperbole.
4. Probably not. You've summarized way too much individual responsibility. Sorry, but they usually find that offensive or hostile. Be aware.
5. No. This is an opinion piece not a research paper.
Good luck <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Heh, i'm guessing you are refering to ultra liberal universities and admission officers?
Thanks for the help spooge and Snidely
Heh, i'm guessing you are refering to ultra liberal universities and admission officers? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd assume that whether or not they agree with your point, your essay would be a lot more well recieved if you included a couple concrete examples of people not caring about the issues but voted because Howard Stern told them to.
Also, it seems like you have two essays on the same subject. The second starts with "<i>The 2004 election will bring in many returning and first time voters</i>."
There are some grammatical errors scattered here and there.
<i>I hope that all new and returning voters <b>they</b> take time to review the issues</i> (remove they)
<i>I encourage and support everyone to vote that <b>have</b> reviewed the issue carefully</i> (should be has)
In response to your last question, experience I have getting my friends to vote tells me that people who go through the process once and suffer through the embarrassment of looking at their ballot and not knowing who the crap all those people are usually end up being responsible voters the next time around. My friends that never really cared about the issues generally never voted.