TFF 12 reason's why People vote Democrat...

[harkontume]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Whatever faults the Democrats have they pale by comparison to the monterous evils of the GOP.

The Republican party began as an amalgum of anti-catholic/zenophobs who formed an alliance with anti-slavery zealot followers of John Brown.

They elected an anti-slavery zealot masquerading as a moderate, Lincoln, who then engineered an illegal war which distroyed half the country.

Because the Republicans won the civil war they became the powerful party in the north, and became the party of the plutocratic elite.

Unfortunately a party of the top 10% will never win elections, so they "reached out" to anyone else who would have them....evangelical theocrats, kooky right wingers, etc.

Today it's these kooks who form the base of the party.

WoW.. that's a nice ass in the Avatar! Is it your's?
All the Kooky right wingers on the board want to know!

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Ahhh, and you're twisted little game of numbers begins. .....So are YOU saying that a 38% increase in college enrollment from 1999-2009 is due to the same amount of growth in population during that same time period? Really? A 38% population growth in the United States in 10 years? LOL, ok, F-Sharp, anything you say! LOL

Oh D, please go back and read the original statement then re-check your facts. That 38% you're talking about is mostly attributable to community college enrollments, not four-year institutions. I believe this is the source from where you pulled that data, and once again you apparently failed to actually read it.

"This new peak in college enrollment has come in the midst of a recession that has driven the national unemployment rate to its highest level in more than a quarter of a century and has had an especially harsh impact on young adults. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a smaller share of 16- to 24-year-olds were employed in September 2009 — 46.1% — than at any time since the government began collecting such data in 1948.

Community college enrollments have long been considered somewhat countercyclical; that is, they tend to rise as the economy worsens (Betts and McFarland, 1995). One reason is that community colleges are less expensive than four-year institutions — they average $6,750 per year (including tuition, fees, and room and board) in the net price for full-time students, compared with $9,800 for four-year public colleges and $21,240 for four-year private colleges (College Board, 2009).2"

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/...college-surge/

Point is, "enrollment" in a community college has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and certainly not what was reflected in my original post. According to your source, most of these enrollments are actually occurring because these folks are unable to find work!

Here's some more statistics you refuse to pay attention to: On average, 70% of community college attendees never complete any degree, much less transfer to a four-year instituion. Maybe you consider dropping out of community college as actually obtaining a higher education, but I don't. Maybe the term "college" is just a little to vague for you, so for sake of clarification let's just stick to obtainment of a four-year degree from an accredited university as a base for further discussion.

If anything, your information continues to confirm exactly what I already stated. So thanks, I guess.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Because we all know that ACORN, MoveOn.org, Occupy Wall Street/America, many of the various Unions, PETA, etc etc that help make up the Democratic Party don't have their fair share of "kooky left wingers" in them.

Groups like ACORN do not dominate the party like the evangelicals and so forth have come to DETERMINE who the Republican candidates are.

As far as Unions go, do you mean Unions like the city of Austin policemens' Union? You mean Unions like that?*

The crazy thing is that the Republican/plutocratic elite [with which I have very little quarrel btw] share absolutely nothing with the evangelicals and nutballs in the party. The "plutocrats" look on the Republican base with derision and contempt [although it's well hidden].

btw I like animals and think PETA is awesome.

*some of the most right-wing/pro-business anti-government individuals I know are people who spent their careers in the PUBLIC SECTOR, like in defense contrating, law enforcement, the military, etc. None of those people know what it really means to hack it in the private sector.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Groups like ACORN do not dominate the party like the evangelicals and so forth have come to DETERMINE who the Republican candidates are.

As far as Unions go, do you mean Unions like the city of Austin policemens' Union? You mean Unions like that?*

The crazy thing is that the Republican/plutocratic elite [with which I have very little quarrel btw] share absolutely nothing with the evangelicals and nutballs in the party. The "plutocrats" look on the Republican base with derision and contempt [although it's well hidden].

btw I like animals and think PETA is awesome.

*some of the most right-wing/pro-business anti-government individuals I know are people who spent their careers in the PUBLIC SECTOR, like in defense contrating, law enforcement, the military, etc. None of those people know what it really means to hack it in the private sector.

The Democratic party is made of as many "kooky" fringe elements as the Republicans are. To deny that shows just how much of a fantasy world you truly live in. As far as unions....I was talking bout unions such as the UAW, NEA etc that have national influence and are large contributors in terms of money. I could be wrong but I doubt that unions such as APD's that you mention have any influence on the national stage and during major elections.

I think it's rather funny you, Mr. former Government man, trying to look down on people who work in the public sector and questioning their politics. Nothing like you trying to hold the moral high ground on a SHMB when it comes to employment, lol!!!! Guess it's much better to take that higher education one spent so much money on and open up an escort service? I'll give you this....it's probably a lot more fun!

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Oh D, please go back and read the original statement then re-check your facts. That 38% you're talking about is mostly attributable to community college enrollments, not four-year institutions. I believe this is the source from where you pulled that data, and once again you apparently failed to actually read it.

"This new peak in college enrollment has come in the midst of a recession that has driven the national unemployment rate to its highest level in more than a quarter of a century and has had an especially harsh impact on young adults. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a smaller share of 16- to 24-year-olds were employed in September 2009 — 46.1% — than at any time since the government began collecting such data in 1948.

Community college enrollments have long been considered somewhat countercyclical; that is, they tend to rise as the economy worsens (Betts and McFarland, 1995). One reason is that community colleges are less expensive than four-year institutions — they average $6,750 per year (including tuition, fees, and room and board) in the net price for full-time students, compared with $9,800 for four-year public colleges and $21,240 for four-year private colleges (College Board, 2009).2"

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/...college-surge/

Funny how you "self-edit" the above in order to prove your point, a point which is then disputed by your very own source. Allow me to quote the paragraph that immediately followed the one you quoted above:
"Despite the higher costs of four-year institutions, their enrollments have not dropped during this recession. Rather, they have held steady — and have been able to do so despite tuition increases averaging 4.9% per year beyond general inflation from 1999-2000 to 2009-10 at public four-year colleges and universities (College Board, 2009)."

Gotta hate it when your own source disputes your assertions or when a poster actually checks your source and finds the facts your convenient self-editing left out.

Point is, "enrollment" in a community college has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and certainly not what was reflected in my original post. According to your source, most of these enrollments are actually occurring because these folks are unable to find work!

Here's some more statistics you refuse to pay attention to: On average, 70% of community college attendees never complete any degree, much less transfer to a four-year instituion. Maybe you consider dropping out of community college as actually obtaining a higher education, but I don't. Maybe the term "college" is just a little to vague for you, so for sake of clarification let's just stick to obtainment of a four-year degree from an accredited university as a base for further discussion.

If anything, your information continues to confirm exactly what I already stated. So thanks, I guess.

Oh "F", I have suspected for some time that you and TAE could be one and the same. Your tactics and posting styles certainly are similar. When either of you is confronted with facts you try to ridicule or outright LIE about what the OP said or the sources he posted from.
Apparently YOU are the one with reading comprehension issues F-Sharp. I named my source repeatedly and it was NOT "pew social trends". So you obtained data from somewhere completely different and then attribute it to me? Really? Is that how hit works now? So to sum it up:
1. That is NOT where I got my facts from
2. If you actually can figure out how to read then check the link that I will provide to my source of facts. You will see my data included community colleges but certainly wasn't limited to ONLY community colleges as you allege. So basically, all the above that you attributed to me is BS and has nothing to do with the percentages I posted.

Here it is AGAIN:
(Since you couldn't comprehend the words "NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS)

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

Pay attention to this part:
"Enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 9 percent between 1989 and 1999. Between 1999 and 2009, enrollment increased 38 percent, from 14.8 million to 20.4 million. Much of the growth between 1999 and 2009 was in full-time enrollment; the number of full-time students rose 45 percent, while the number of part-time students rose 28 percent. During the same time period, the number of enrolled females rose 40 percent, while the number of enrolled males rose 35 percent. Enrollment increases can be affected by both population growth and rising rates of enrollment. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 26.7 million to 30.4 million, an increase of 14 percent, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 36 percent in 1999 to 41 percent in 2009. In addition to enrollment in accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities, about 472,000 students attended non-degree-granting, Title IV1 eligible postsecondary institutions in fall 2008."

Hey Genius, see the part where it states "in addition to enrollment in accredited 2 year colleges, 4 year colleges and universities"? That would mean the data before it included all those schools NOT simply community colleges.

No need to thank me really, it would be enough just to see you get your facts straight. That's reward enough for me!

1.Undergraduate enrollment at the University of Michigan-Dearborn for 2009-2010 is up.
2.Brandon University enrollment is up for 2009-10
3.Michigan State University saw a slight increase in the enrollment of minority students for the 2008-09 academic year, according to the Diversity and Inclusion at MSU annual progress report.
4.AUSTIN- Huston-Tillotson University officials announced a 12 percent increase in enrollment (2009) from last year and the highest enrollment since the 1952 merger.

Come on F-Sharp, PLEASE tell us that Austin has a 12% increase in the number of African-Americans living in Austin in 2009. But wait....the hits keep coming....

5. Penn State-University-wide enrollment up slightly for 2010
6. University of Nebraska-2009 NU enrollment highest in 13 years; up for 5th consecutive year.

7. 2009 University of Idaho student enrollment up 3 percent
8. Hispanic enrollment up nationwide, reaches 23% at UT (University of Texas)
9.Total enrollment in spring 2009 increased slightly for Hispanic and African American students compared to the 2008 spring semester at The University of Texas at Austin. African American student enrollment for spring 2009 is 2,093 up 4.2 percent!

10. My fingers are getting tired already...do I really need to keep going here F-Sharp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...010_enrollment

Let's sum this up. First you claim that a university education is out of reach for most lower and middle class Americans. When I call BS based on personal experience you mock that.
So next I produce figures that show nationwide enrollment in colleges is UP. You again mock those figures by saying they apply only to "Community Colleges" that have nothing to do with the discussion.
So now I provide facts and proof that overall enrollment nationwide is UP at Universities including right here in Austin where Huston-Tillotson University saw the largest increase in enrollment since 1952 for the predominantly African-American University. At the University of Texas there has been a slight increase in overall enrollment over the last 3 years and a 4.2% increase in African-American enrollment for 2009. Hispanic enrollment nationwide is up at the major Universities.
The icing on the cake? Your OWN SOURCE, the Pew Research Center states that DESPITE the recession and the rising college costs, enrollment at public four-year colleges and universities has remained steady!

Yes, please F-Sharp, enlighten us some more with your intellect and insight on the matter of higher education enrollment in our Country!


I can help put that out for you F-Sharp if you'd like me to. Got the perfect fire extinguisher...

[aroundaustin]

The funny thing is John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison and all the other founders of our country would be considered right wing extremists today. The "Occupy" crowd would be protesting outside these founder's homes for their ideas of limited government and for being the creators of our capitalist economic system.

Where do I think everything went wrong? Every generation has a responsibility to educate the following generation on the reason why the founders created a limited form of government. Slowly over time, this message has been blurred, twisted and now just about completely forgotten. Do you think the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd has any clue of why limited government is important? I even know several so called conservatives who don't understand it's importance.

Everybody has either forgotten or just plain don't understand the warning Ben Franklin gave us regarding the system they created. He said, "You have a republic if you can keep it".

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

The Democratic party is made of as many "kooky" fringe elements as the Republicans are. To deny that shows just how much of a fantasy world you truly live in. As far as unions....I was talking bout unions such as the UAW, NEA etc that have national influence and are large contributors in terms of money. I could be wrong but I doubt that unions such as APD's that you mention have any influence on the national stage and during major elections.

I think it's rather funny you, Mr. former Government man, trying to look down on people who work in the public sector and questioning their politics. Nothing like you trying to hold the moral high ground on a SHMB when it comes to employment, lol!!!! Guess it's much better to take that higher education one spent so much money on and open up an escort service? I'll give you this....it's probably a lot more fun!

No one believes that PETA or ACORN have any influence over who the Democratic nominee is.

On the contrary you know very well that far-right groups like the Family Research Council, Bob Jones University, etc. have a virtual veto in the Republican party.

I have no problem with anyone working in the public sector, as I once did.

My problem is the right-wing hypocrites who claim only the private sector is noble, but they can't hack it in the private sector so they spend their careers doing some kind of government work instead.

The worst bureaucracies I've ever seen are in the military/intelligence/law enforcement areas of government.


Aroundaustin,

You need to read a little more about the beliefs of the founders.

Except for Hamilton they were all opposed to publicly chartered corporations, state sponsored banks, and centralization of finance of any kind.

If they were around today they wouldn't be camping outside the banks....they would be storming them with mortar fire!

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No one believes that PETA or ACORN have any influence over who the Democratic nominee is.

I like how you focused on Peta and Acorn and ignore the NEA, one of the largest union financial contributors to the Democratic Party.
Though you try to minimize Acorn, let's not let our fine readers forget about the voter registration fraud they committed on behalf of Democrats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

On the contrary you know very well that far-right groups like the Family Research Council, Bob Jones University, etc. have a virtual veto in the Republican party.

I have no problem with anyone working in the public sector, as I once did.

My problem is the right-wing hypocrites who claim only the private sector is noble, but they can't hack it in the private sector so they spend their careers doing some kind of government work instead.

The worst bureaucracies I've ever seen are in the military/intelligence/law enforcement areas of government.


Aroundaustin,

You need to read a little more about the beliefs of the founders.

Except for Hamilton they were all opposed to publicly chartered corporations, state sponsored banks, and centralization of finance of any kind.

If they were around today they wouldn't be camping outside the banks....they would be storming them with mortar fire!

.

[theaustinescorts]

Unions give money just like anyone else. Unions are not kooky or loony. The Austin Police have a strong union that makes sure that no Mayor or City Councilman criticises them whenever they shoot and kill someone for no real reason, and maybe that's the way it should be.

There are plenty of business groups and PACS that donate money to both sides and letting them donate money and prevent Unions from doing so would be a little inconsistent.

There's no reason why Unions can't express their views through the constitutional right of money speech just like everyone else.

It's called free speech...part of our republic I guess.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Unions give money just like anyone else. Unions are not kooky or loony. The Austin Police have a strong union that makes sure that no Mayor or City Councilman criticises them whenever they shoot and kill someone for no real reason, and maybe that's the way it should be.

There are plenty of business groups and PACS that donate money to both sides and letting them donate money and prevent Unions from doing so would be a little inconsistent.

There's no reason why Unions can't express their views through the constitutional right of money speech just like everyone else.

It's called free speech...part of our republic I guess.

Not quite sure what your fascination with the Austin Police union is? You continue to bring them up. Irregardless you decry Republican fringe groups and then try to convince us that groups such as ACORN, which commit voter fraud, are somehow good for our Country?
Only in your world my friend, only in your world!

[aroundaustin]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Aroundaustin,

You need to read a little more about the beliefs of the founders.

Except for Hamilton they were all opposed to publicly chartered corporations, state sponsored banks, and centralization of finance of any kind.

If they were around today they wouldn't be camping outside the banks....they would be storming them with mortar fire!

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion a conservative must support a state sponsored bank or the centralization of finance. The Federal Reserve is a state sponsered banking cartel which was created by Woodrow Wilson, a leader of the progressive movement and a Democrat.

I don't have a problem with Flea Baggers protesting the Federal Reserve or bailing out banks but I do have a problem with their attack on capitalism. It is not capitalism when bad banks are not allowed to go bankrupt. I'm also against the Flea Bagger's attack on the concept of limited government and their desire for a nanny state.

[theaustinescorts]

I'm a conservative but I don't claim that the founders would support free enterprise or the lack of a welfare state because they never had the ocassion to express any views on these topics. A free market in their time was a given except for severe regulation of foreign trade, which they also treated as a given. These were not topics of debate in their time.

They were however totally motivated by the same issue which motivate the Occupiers......centralization of financial power in the hands of a few WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT.* And by this I don't mean that the 1% have gained all the wealth because of a "free market." On the contrary they've done it because government law, action, and inaction has guaranteed that the free market would be bent in favor of the financial/speculative elite AT THE EXPENSE OF PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS.

There is a colossal difference between BUSINESS INTEREST and the interest of FINANICAL SPECULATION.

Speculators now dominate all the largest banks, and they've conflated themselves with ordinary business in order to put up a smoke screen to avoid pubic criticism. Today the Republicans have completely fallen for this, as have the Democrats for that matter.
For anyone who knows what the founders' [except for Hamilton's] views were it's not even an argument.

The founders would be considered terrorists today because of the violence they'd unlease on the bankers.

They'd be hauling them up to lynched....no joke.

*A major reason for the revolution was that certain financial interests were controlled monopolies granted by the Crown.


It's the free market. ...G. Gekko



D'Torchia,

Let me ask you a litmus-test question.....

How do you feel about the fact that no Republican can be nominated unless he declares that legalized abortion is immoral and should be abolished?

Do you agree that abortion is immoral and should be abolished?

Do you believe that pro-life groups are only "fringe groups" in the Republican party?

[WyldemanATX]

All I got to say is no one has a sense of humor anymore....

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

Let me ask you a litmus-test question.....

How do you feel about the fact that no Republican can be nominated unless he declares that legalized abortion is immoral and should be abolished?

Honestly,in this day and age, what DEMOCRAT would be nominated if he was anti-abortion? It's one of the most polarizing issues in politics today and it's certainly not limited to the Republican side. Any Democrat that comes out publicly against abortion won't have any more chance of getting nominated than a Republican who's pro-abortion. What's your point?

Do you agree that abortion is immoral and should be abolished?

I don't look at it as a moral issue. I look at it from a practical standpoint.
My personal opinion is that there are so many means out there today to prevent conception/pregnancy that I don't see why it has to be used as a form of birth control....and let's just be honest, that's what is. Yes, I know there's cases like rape or where the pill and other birth control measures failed etc but those special cases certainly don't account for the majority of abortions. Let's just be honest. The majority of abortions occur from proper planning not taking place or proper birth control not being practiced. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are those exceptions the norm? No.
Before people start screaming here, I'm not telling women what to do with their body. I was asked my view on abortion and stated it.
We also have many American couples who go overseas to adopt. Seems there are plenty of couples out there that can't conceive and would like to adopt. So you have dozens of different forms of birth control available, you have the option to place the child up for adoption (if the mother or parents who made the child can't afford it, aren't ready to take on the responsibility etc)....if it's not a special circumstance I simply don't see the need for it. That's my view on it.

Do you believe that pro-life groups are only "fringe groups" in the Republican party?

I'm sure they would consider themselves more than a "fringe group" but let's ask this. Do you really think that behind closed doors they carry more power than the banking industry and the myriad of wall street and other lobbyists? I honestly don't know. I do know this....you've hardly heard a word muttered about the pro-life/pro-abortion debate so far. There's two things driving this coming election. The economy and foreign affairs. Nothing else will have any substantial impact.

[theaustinescorts]

You've illustrated my point.

No one who's pro-life can be a Democratic nominee because 80% of the American public wants abortion kept legal.

But on the Republican side no one can be their nominee unless they pledge alligance to the 10% or so of the public which wants to see abortion made illegal once again.

The fringe groups in the Democratic party have no real weight in their party,
but the fringe groups in the Republican party have real influence in theirs.

Abortion is but one example.