Hit me like a ton of bricks

[Mark]

Always wondered why many Democrats over the years convert to Republican. This is not only true with everyday people but also politicians.

Quite simple answer.........The natural progression of mankind is to get smarter not dumber. :naughty:

[CharlotteLax1]

People get wiser as they age.

[anjang86]

:whyme:

such a ridiculous political topic... I'm waiting for the punchline

[FredtheCat]

Meh. If you're gonna say something like that, at least give some examples and stats... :thumbsdow

[CharlotteLax1]

Meh. If you're gonna say something like that, at least give some examples and stats... :thumbsdow
In every generation, young people favor the Democrats and older people favor the Republicans.


It should be obvious.

[Ambidextrous]

Here's an example. Both of my parent's were Democrats untill they hit 25. Then they magically switched to the almighty Republican's.

[anjang86]

republicans are senile

[CharlotteLax1]

republicans are senile
Actually, as adults start moving towards old, senile people, they go back to being a Democrat.

[anjang86]

Actually, as adults start moving towards old, senile people, they go back to being a Democrat.

dude you can do a lot better than that

[CharlotteLax1]

dude you can do a lot better than that
Think about it, it's true. They want cheap medicine (at the expense of me and you)


I wasn't making a joke.

[enjoi]

In every generation, young people favor the Democrats and older people favor the Republicans.


It should be obvious.

You sir are a bigot and a stereotyper.

Well then i guess I'll go to the college democrats meeting and protest the local grocery store.

/:whyme:

[anjang86]

look at the demographics of the people who vote and look at the split of the votes last eleciton year.. almost 50/50 I dont think your age/party generlizations and the actual votes from 4 years ago match up.

[gKash187]

democrats smell like poo!


..republicans too.

..its a proven fact

[roughrider]

Always wondered why many Democrats over the years convert to Republican. This is not only true with everyday people but also politicians.

Quite simple answer.........The natural progression of mankind is to get smarter not dumber. :naughty:

I would not say this is nessasarily true. If you are talking about the conservative boom of the 1980s that can be attributed not to coverting democrats but getting the radical conservative christian right back into politics. case in point-the decision by the supreme court that sports teams arnt allowed to pray (public schools) and that schools cannot set aside time for prayer in school greatly angered the hardcore christians. they in turn created conservative political groups to further their agenda-pat robertson and his minions. they was a great anger in the early 80s by christians towards the gov.s position of the intigration of church and state and as a result people who would have never voted before became well organized and invovled with politics (unfortunatly).

Lastly where did you get this idea of the converting of democrats. I get yelled at for not backing up what I say. Do you have credible proof of this phenominom or is this an opinion? I would even challenge your argument with my own personal expierence of converting 2 people to the good side.

[roughrider]

Here's an example. Both of my parent's were Democrats untill they hit 25. Then they magically switched to the almighty Republican's.

Did they find jesus or something. I hate it when that happens

[anjang86]

Did they find jesus or something. I hate it when that happens

do you have any evidence of hating that? cause I proved my theory... hey now I didn't bring religion into this you did... stop looking at me like that... HELP!

[TheHead]

... hey now I didn't bring religion into this you did... stop looking at me like that... HELP!


GET................LIFE.....................NOW... .......................!!

[Dan]

Yeah, whatever, thehead. I've seen it happen. All of the children are democrats because all the cool people on TV and the radio are left-wingnuts. Then they get to be an adult, and a lot of people stop being democrats and change their political philosophy. I mean married people, usually. College students still are in the midst of pop culture. This is just my own opinion on what happens, because a lot of people don't know what goes on in the world because they listen to highly biased opinions of people. Those that do their own research and stay in tune with the news know what's really going on, and make their own choice. That's why I don't really argue with the foolish children in my school. They don't really know what they stand for.

[Mark]

Man I love stirring up your young minds ! Hehehe

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

In every generation, young people favor the Democrats and older people favor the Republicans.


It should be obvious.

it is obvious... just look at the issues...

education... strong dem issue... teachers and young ppl are dems bc this issue affects them most

taxes... reps offer lots of tax cuts... middle aged people are republicans because they spendmore money and therefore are taxed more than the younger or older folks.

medical... strong dem issue... older folks require more medical attention, such as medicare and prescription drugs.

financial aid... strong dem issue... college kids depend on financial aid and older folks depend on social security

business... rep are usually more business friendly, esp to big business... middle aged folks are more likely to own businesses or parts of businesses than those who are just starting out or those who are retired.

i could list more...

[anjang86]

Yeah, whatever, thehead. I've seen it happen. All of the children are democrats because all the cool people on TV and the radio are left-wingnuts. Then they get to be an adult, and a lot of people stop being democrats and change their political philosophy. I mean married people, usually. College students still are in the midst of pop culture. This is just my own opinion on what happens, because a lot of people don't know what goes on in the world because they listen to highly biased opinions of people. Those that do their own research and stay in tune with the news know what's really going on, and make their own choice. That's why I don't really argue with the foolish children in my school. They don't really know what they stand for.


dude I dont see how you can say that. We know what's going on and wehave just like Republicans do.. not because its cool to be liberal.

I'm a liberal because they are a little easier on immigrants and they are a little more open minded... I dont appreciate the fact that republicans have this 'we are the best we dont answer to anybody' mindset... you like that I dont, thats why I am a liberal and you are a republican..

I'm not a liberal because MTV told me to be. The people in the media are waht you could call 'grown up' so why exactly are they left-wing nuts; why aren't they superduper smart awesome great Republicans?

those 'foolish' kids in school might be standing for something, you never what kind of mindset they have. What exactly do they say that makes you belive that they aren't informed? Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they are misinformed... you and them interpret the news and events around the world differently.

[Mark]

The people in the media are waht you could call 'grown up' so why exactly are they left-wing nuts.

At least you acknowledge they are left wing "nuts". :clap: So how about that media bias ... :nono:

[anjang86]

At least you acknowledge they are left wing "nuts". :clap: So how about that media bias ... :nono:

I'm asking Raine a question based on what he said, not what I said

[Mark]

I'm asking Raine a question based on what he said, not what I said

:chuckle: .............................................

[bayhawkslax216]

Media Bias- ever heard of Sinclair Broadcasting Group? No? well, they are pulling their primetime programming in order to show a purely anti-kerry hour long special. Oh, and they refuse to broadcast similar broadcasting in favour of the liberals.

It can also be looked at as "young, innocent, pureminded people vote dem, middle age people who want all their money to themselves vote repub., and older, more wise people vote for dems." - now im not saying that that is true, but really you could spin that any way you want. I don't even see any proof of those changes.

Giving meds to elders by taking money away from you? Proof please. Kerry wants to relegalize getting drugs from canada. how is that taking money from you? your precious, precious, money, which you need every cent of and can't let more needy have some? What a true patriot, not helping your fellow americans. Thanks

[anjang86]

:chuckle: .............................................

the heck is so funny?

[Dan]

Well, I guess I left off the part where the people in my school vote republican without a mind. They support a party they know nothing about. It's a good thing they can't vote. Kids should be able to vote if they can take a test before to prove they know the issues. One of my friends is super conservative, and I'm not sure he knows everything he supports. I like debating with people who are liberal and know why they are liberal. I know most of the liberals here know what they support and why. I just don't like the mindless kids.

[Longest]

Media Bias- ever heard of Sinclair Broadcasting Group? No? well, they are pulling their primetime programming in order to show a purely anti-kerry hour long special. Oh, and they refuse to broadcast similar broadcasting in favour of the liberals.

Giving meds to elders by taking money away from you? Proof please. Kerry wants to relegalize getting drugs from canada. how is that taking money from you? your precious, precious, money, which you need every cent of and can't let more needy have some? What a true patriot, not helping your fellow americans. Thanks

Sinclair Broadcasting can broadcast what they like, anytime they like. They do not need the approval of outraged Americans of either party to tell them what to do. If they want to preempt the highest rated show on TV to show dogs playing poker while wearing dresses, that is their right and their power.

I'm all for the cheap meds, people buying things at the lowest price possible, I don't care from where and for that, I think Kerry has something correct, cheap drugs. For you, maybe patriotism is giving away the right to decide what to do with your money, whom to help. I help plenty of people in my community, I don't need the government telling me who gets my help with the money I work to get. There's no proof the government's plan is more effective then just giving out free money (80 cents of every dollar spent is eaten up in the red tape). So try again on showing how capitalists detest the poor and needy, maybe I just have a better concept of what would help them and a pragmatic view of what is not.

Dan

[roughrider]

Sinclair Broadcasting can broadcast what they like, anytime they like. They do not need the approval of outraged Americans of either party to tell them what to do. If they want to preempt the highest rated show on TV to show dogs playing poker while wearing dresses, that is their right and their power.

I'm all for the cheap meds, people buying things at the lowest price possible, I don't care from where and for that, I think Kerry has something correct, cheap drugs. For you, maybe patriotism is giving away the right to decide what to do with your money, whom to help. I help plenty of people in my community, I don't need the government telling me who gets my help with the money I work to get. There's no proof the government's plan is more effective then just giving out free money (80 cents of every dollar spent is eaten up in the red tape). So try again on showing how capitalists detest the poor and needy, maybe I just have a better concept of what would help them and a pragmatic view of what is not.

Dan

They can show whatever they want. But we were discussing media bias. Republicans cry media bias whenever they dont like the headline in the newspaper saying Iraq never had WMDS or what have you.

[Dan]

I've never even heard of Sinclair. I just thought they were a west coast gas station. The liberal media bias is much bigger, and to deny that, you'd have to be severely drunk or just stupid. Or ignorant. There's no point in arguing it, and we'll live with what we've got.

[JAFlorence]

...and as a result people who would have never voted before became well organized and invovled with politics (unfortunatly).

It's unfortunate people are going out there, voicing their opinions, and voting?

[timmy]

Media Bias- ever heard of Sinclair Broadcasting Group? No? well, they are pulling their primetime programming in order to show a purely anti-kerry hour long special. Oh, and they refuse to broadcast similar broadcasting in favour of the liberals.




OH NO! A PUBLIC brodcasting company, broadcasting a DOCUMENTARY with an OPINION towards one side?!?!? Quickly Adolf, bring in the SS, independent thought is a-brewin!

[roughrider]

...

It's unfortunate people are going out there, voicing their opinions, and voting?

it was a joke obviously that they would be voting republican. geesh, everyone needs to take a few deep breathes

[bayhawkslax216]

I've never even heard of Sinclair. I just thought they were a west coast gas station. The liberal media bias is much bigger, and to deny that, you'd have to be severely drunk or just stupid. Or ignorant. There's no point in arguing it, and we'll live with what we've got.

they own alot of stations, but you wouldn't know it. Here, its the local CBS station, thats the majority of what they own, and its all over the country.

[Lyons Lax]

yea....cool mark.....real cool

[roughrider]

While we are on the topic, 90% of tv station are owned by 7 companys. Does that not disgust you? They can control what they want people to think essentially. The president wont have the highest office in 2004, but the CEO desk at some big broadcaster. Disgusting

[Thrillhouse]

Media Bias- ever heard of Sinclair Broadcasting Group? No? well, they are pulling their primetime programming in order to show a purely anti-kerry hour long special. Oh, and they refuse to broadcast similar broadcasting in favour of the liberals.

It can also be looked at as "young, innocent, pureminded people vote dem, middle age people who want all their money to themselves vote repub., and older, more wise people vote for dems." - now im not saying that that is true, but really you could spin that any way you want. I don't even see any proof of those changes.

Giving meds to elders by taking money away from you? Proof please. Kerry wants to relegalize getting drugs from canada. how is that taking money from you? your precious, precious, money, which you need every cent of and can't let more needy have some? What a true patriot, not helping your fellow americans. Thanks

A broadcasting company is going to play a tape of John Kerry testifying, under oath, to the Senate in 1971, and then they are going to talk about it. Why is it unreasonable to broadcast something, which was said by a man who wants to be the President of the United States, which is a matter of public record? People are saying they were held longer as POW’s because of the testimony he gave. After what they went through, they’ve earned the right to be heard.
So Sinclair is going to broadcast this footage of John Kerry admitting he committed war atrocities and there is nothing he can do to defend himself…
…except maybe show up and defend himself!
http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtml
John Kerry has a right to be heard as well. He’s been invited to show up and be part of the program, although his campaign has already said he will not take part in it. How can he tell us that he is going to stand up to the big drug corporations, to the Saudi family, to the gun manufactures, and to every other organization that the President sides with instead of the middle class, but he won’t show up to a TV studio to defend what he said before congress?

[TheKOB]

here's a forward I got that deals with it, and I think has some of what will be broadcast....

Colonel George E. ' Bud ' Day is our country's most highly-decorated living veteran officer. He served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, receiving more than fifty combat awards . . and the Medal of Honor.

What he wants now is to stop John Kerry from being elected President.

Day traveled from his home in Florida to participate in the filming of two new ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In one of the spots, he directly addresses Kerry: " How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?"

In the early 1970s, when Kerry was (1) meeting with America's Communist enemies in Paris and (2) falsely claiming to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces
in Vietnam were committing war crimes on a day-to-day basis, Day was a POW in a North Vietnamese prison.

During his five-plus years of captivity Day was brutally tortured. Now he is one of several former POWs featured in Stolen Honor : Wounds That Never Heal . . a documentary about the effect of the anti-war movement on American prisoners of war being held in Vietnam.

The film, which portrays John Kerry in an unsympathetic light, will soon air on 62 broadcast stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, despite loud protests from the Kerry camp. Many of the company's stations are in 'swing vote' states.

INTERVIEWER : You are a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, and well known among those familiar with the history of Vietnam. What is so important to you about this election that you have decided to get involved in the efforts of Navy's Swift Boat veterans ?

COL. BUD DAY: I felt a terrible sense of outrage when the Kerry campaign attacked President Bush about his National Guard qualifications. I was the advisor to a Guard unit that got called up for Vietnam, and we lost three friends of mine. And I thought it was a
very mean thing for him to be discounting military service in the Guard. That unit likewise could have been called up. When [Kerry's] campaign began playing ' him' up as a war hero, I thought that was very questionable. While his service might have been satisfactory, what he did after coming back was quite unsatisfactory.

INTERVIEWER : What was your first exposure to Kerry's 1971 testimony?

BUD DAY : At the time I was a POW, I had heard that a Naval officer was badmouthing our performance and basically saying we ought to get out of Vietnam and the war was wrong and so forth. I wasn't aware that it was [ John Kerry ] until well after I was back from Vietnam.


INTERVIEWER : Did it surprise you to hear of an officer's giving such testimony?

BUD DAY: It astonished me, because basically it was a breach of faith with those people he had served with. It was absolutely untrue that we were committing atrocities there. It was absolutely untrue that we were raping women . . murdering children . and doing all those kinds of things. And either he knew that was untrue, or he should have known from his own experiences Later, I found out that he had made two (2) visits to meet with [ Communist leader ] Le Duc Tho in Paris, and pushed the enemy's seven-point piece plan--which amounted to us tendering some kind of ransom for the POWs. Under that condition we would come home after we would apologize for ever having been in the war. It told me that he [ John Kerry ] really was a man of Benedict Arnold qualities.

INTERVIEWER : Did it undermine your morale to hear that a fellow officer was essentially parroting what your captors were telling you . . and torturing you to say ?

BUD DAY: Yes. In my mind in jail at that time I suspected that he was some sort of hanger-on with Jane Fonda. I assumed that [he ] was some Naval officer that had kind
of gone around the bend. I was skeptical and I thought it might just be some more propaganda.

INTERVIEWER : If John Kerry's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Vietnam had been put into effect, would your life, as a POW (1) have been in greater or less danger ? And (2) would there have been a greater or a lesser chance to go home?

BUD DAY : It would have been in far greater danger. They always called me a war criminal, they threatened several times to shoot me after the war [ended]. Frankly, I didn't go to sleep every night because in my gut I knew that our government was going to bomb them out. But had a surrender occurred, it would have been a totally different thing. Those people would have been totally able to do anything they wanted to do with us. They could have turned us loose, they could have not turned us loose, they could have shot us, they could have put us on trial. Not only that, but there would have been a blood bath of South Vietnamese in the hundreds of thousands.

INTERVIEWER : Kerry since said that some of the language he used might have been inappropriate, spoken as an angry young man. Does that cut it with you for an apology?

BUD DAY: It was no apology--it wasn't even an explanation. He dodged the question. He blackened every Vietnam veteran's name when he came back and told all of those terrible stories about what we were supposedly doing.

The North Vietnamese government's Bui Tin said words to this effect : Everyday, the North Vietnamese listened to the radio to see what was happening in the United States. And what they heard on the radio from John Kerry was exactly the kind of propaganda that they wanted to hear, because those reports were going to win this war [ for them ] on the streets of San Francisco and New York City. It is clear that Kerry was helping them do that. And the Soviet Union's disinformation program was saying exactly the same thing John Kerry was saying. He [John Kerry ] basically functioned as a propaganda minister for both the Russians and the North Vietnamese. John Kerry basically was advocating for the Communists to win.

INTERVIEWER : Have you ever been active in politics before?

DAY: Yes. I supported Harry Truman in 1948. I supported Ronald Reagan. I supported George Bush Senior. I supported John McCain [in 2000]. I was his commander in jail, and
I went with John's campaign all around the country quite a bit.

[abridged for email ]


they don't control what people think, only what they see if they watch them and believe everything they hear.

[Longest]

While we are on the topic, 90% of tv station are owned by 7 companys. Does that not disgust you? They can control what they want people to think essentially. The president wont have the highest office in 2004, but the CEO desk at some big broadcaster. Disgusting

I don't quite know how to respond to this. Frankly, what disgusts me more is the New York Times. THEY decide what news is national worthy; news pulled from the wire is only vaild if the Times reports it. The decline of their prestige following Jason Blair and the extreme neo-liberalism of their pure "news" stories is more disturbing when coupled with people just looking the other way. Main TV news anchors are still liberal. Are you suggesting Rupert Murdoch owns all media?

While answering all that, since you apparently ARE disgusted, why not offer a few suggestions, what should be done to fix this system if it's so horribly out of whack?

Dan

[bayhawkslax216]

My problem is that Sinclair will not broadcast anything for equal time for Kerry, and they claim they are fair and balanced. This Swift Boat thing is sooo rediculous. If Georgie B wants to join the National Guard instead of volunteer for the army 50 years ago, Fine, i wouldnt wanna fight in a pointless war either. If kerry wants to volunteer for battle and then come back and say how terrible it was, Fine. They both had the same feelings about going there in the end. but, the point is it was 50 YEARS ago. It means absolutly NOTHING to this election. NOTHING. Either side saying anything about it is dumb, and it is ruining our election like a cancer, it is just a smear tactic to try to get cheap votes from people to ignorant to see that it means nothing.

[TheHead]

i disagree, these are important things that reveal much about a mans charecter

[Dan]

Korean War was about 50 years ago, not 'Nam. Kerry brought this up; shouldn't you be a little TO'd at your own candidate for starting this mess? And the fact that Bush hasn't endorsed ANY of this war stuff? He didn't support the Swift Boat Vets, he hasn't done anything like that at all. They're doing it of their own volition. So, go ahead and blame Bush, but he's innocent of supporting Sinclair OR the Swift Boat Vets. Yeesh.

[anjang86]

Korean War was about 50 years ago, not 'Nam. Kerry brought this up; shouldn't you be a little TO'd at your own candidate for starting this mess? And the fact that Bush hasn't endorsed ANY of this war stuff? He didn't support the Swift Boat Vets, he hasn't done anything like that at all. They're doing it of their own volition. So, go ahead and blame Bush, but he's innocent of supporting Sinclair OR the Swift Boat Vets. Yeesh.

Kerry brought up his service but he didn't bring up any sort of 'mess' that you are referring to. Just cause the commercial doesn't say "I'm George Bush, and I approve this message" doesn't mean that he had nothing to do with it. You dont think he's happy that those ads are running?

[bayhawkslax216]

Korean War was about 50 years ago, not 'Nam. Kerry brought this up; shouldn't you be a little TO'd at your own candidate for starting this mess? And the fact that Bush hasn't endorsed ANY of this war stuff? He didn't support the Swift Boat Vets, he hasn't done anything like that at all. They're doing it of their own volition. So, go ahead and blame Bush, but he's innocent of supporting Sinclair OR the Swift Boat Vets. Yeesh.

OK, fourty years, not fifty, so i guess my whole arguement is entirely false http://www.lacrosseforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=146463#
But really, am i wrong or didnt some of bush's biggest attornies resign from his re-election efforts because of the direct link between SBV for truth and the Bush administration? If you wanna get into who started it, its the guy who dug up Bush's war record. Not Kerry. Seriously, everyone i know at Kerry HQ thinks its pointless, and clearly bush doesn't wanna talk about his record, so lets just drop the whole thing.

[roughrider]

OK, fourty years, not fifty, so i guess my whole arguement is entirely false http://www.lacrosseforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=146463#
But really, am i wrong or didnt some of bush's biggest attornies resign from his re-election efforts because of the direct link between SBV for truth and the Bush administration? If you wanna get into who started it, its the guy who dug up Bush's war record. Not Kerry. Seriously, everyone i know at Kerry HQ thinks its pointless, and clearly bush doesn't wanna talk about his record, so lets just drop the whole thing.

No no, I believe I do recall this. Wasn't Carl Rove's (sp?) best friend the main financiar of the Swift Boat Ads.

[Longest]

My problem is that Sinclair will not broadcast anything for equal time for Kerry, and they claim they are fair and balanced. This Swift Boat thing is sooo rediculous. If Georgie B wants to join the National Guard instead of volunteer for the army 50 years ago, Fine, i wouldnt wanna fight in a pointless war either. If kerry wants to volunteer for battle and then come back and say how terrible it was, Fine. They both had the same feelings about going there in the end. but, the point is it was 50 YEARS ago. It means absolutly NOTHING to this election. NOTHING. Either side saying anything about it is dumb, and it is ruining our election like a cancer, it is just a smear tactic to try to get cheap votes from people to ignorant to see that it means nothing.

Sinclair does not have to broadcast anything they do not want to. I know you realize this. So here we have a divergence: are you saying they must be compelled to free and equal time OR that it's not fair but Kerry is really powerless over the situation?

Dan

[Thrillhouse]

My problem is that Sinclair will not broadcast anything for equal time for Kerry, and they claim they are fair and balanced. This Swift Boat thing is sooo rediculous. If Georgie B wants to join the National Guard instead of volunteer for the army 50 years ago, Fine, i wouldnt wanna fight in a pointless war either. If kerry wants to volunteer for battle and then come back and say how terrible it was, Fine. They both had the same feelings about going there in the end. but, the point is it was 50 YEARS ago. It means absolutly NOTHING to this election. NOTHING. Either side saying anything about it is dumb, and it is ruining our election like a cancer, it is just a smear tactic to try to get cheap votes from people to ignorant to see that it means nothing.

I know it’s hard to diverge from the rhetoric that you read on MTV.com, but they’ve invited Kerry to the program. You can’t get fairer then that. All he has to do is show up and defend himself. If he’s not willing to defend himself, how can we be sure he’s going to defend us?
Your argument that what John Kerry said about a war 31 years ago (you might want to brush up on your math skills) doesn’t mean anything to this election is ridiculous, his military service is used all the time as a reason he has what it takes to be President. Just yesterday one of his campaign spokespeople argued that his military service qualified him to keep America safe when responding to criticism from The Vice President. "He has the audacity to question whether a decorated combat veteran who has bled on the battlefield is tough and aggressive enough to keep America safe," said Mark Kitchens, Kerry campaign national security spokesman.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041019/D85QOUF80.html
The Kerry campaign has made the Senators military record a cornerstone of the campaign. How on earth can you argue that what Kerry said about a war that he didn’t agree with is not valuable information to have when we are deciding who should be our Commander in Chief in the mist of a war? The fact that John Kerry doesn’t agree with this war either makes it that much more relevant.
This isn’t a fake memo; this is sworn testimony before the Senate, what he said is undisputable. If John Kerry no longer has the same views he did in 1971, then he needs to go on this program and explain himself. We should expect nothing less from someone who wants to be the President.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

i'm gonna have to agree for once with thrillhouse on the fact thtat military service does have a lot to do with a campaign, as it shows what kind of character and such that a candidate has.