Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: wreckingball on February 14, 2010, 04:07:13 PM
-
Live 100.5 went off air today @ around 2. Instead of keeping the only original music station Birmingham had on air, Citadel Broadcasting opted to change the indie music station into a talk radio station. Instead of capitalizing on a niche market, they go with a talk radio station to compete with the other 3 FM talk radio stations. This adds on to my ever extending list of reasons to completely dissolve Medicare. By evolutionary standards, shouldn't the younger,stronger and more and intelligent people rule the country? The older generations have consistently caused more problems which they constantly "fix" by passing the buck to the younger generations. From draining Social Security to clogging up our roadways to a snails pace, I say it's finally time for the younger generation to pull the plug on the old fogies. I am usually pretty apathetic regarding most issues in this country, but if I am forced to listen to any goddamn classic rock/country/rap/talk radio station due to the elder incompetence at the head of some corporation in New York, then I say we start ridding ourselves of this old plague and finally let our country evolve into the great place it could be. Rant over.
-
Fuckin Hippie.
-
Fuckin Hippie.
Congratulations!!
By implying that I am a hippie from reading my original post, you just made the "Dumb Fuck that I Hope Dies" list. A hippie would say the exact opposite of what I said. They want to extend Medicare and Healthcare to the old and poor, whereas I want to take it all away. So hows a bouts you gos and turns up ya Garth Brooks you fucking redneck and drive your Ford truck off a cliff.
-
Congratulations!!
By implying that I am a hippie from reading my original post, you just made the "Dumb Fuck that I Hope Dies" list. A hippie would say the exact opposite of what I said. They want to extend Medicare and Healthcare to the old and poor, whereas I want to take it all away. So hows a bouts you gos and turns up ya Garth Brooks you fucking redneck and drive your Ford truck off a cliff.
(http://th07.deviantart.net/fs31/300W/f/2008/227/5/f/Why_So_Cereal__by_Desidus.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODxHMwuEo# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODxHMwuEo#)
Lets listen to Some String Cheese and hug a tree together. :)
-
Congratulations!!
By implying that I am a hippie from reading my original post, you just made the "Dumb phuk that I Hope Dies" list. A hippie would say the exact opposite of what I said. They want to extend Medicare and Healthcare to the old and poor, whereas I want to take it all away. So hows a bouts you gos and turns up ya Garth Brooks you phuking redneck and drive your Ford truck off a cliff.
The poor (most of whom dont want to work and play the system) = Yes, I agree somewhat.
The old? They paid into it man. Just like they did Social Security. Its not their fault the govt didnt manage their money right.
I agree - Garth Brooks sucks, but I do like some of those Ford Trucks. Those Super Dutys are the shit. I wouldnt even put em into the same category. :)
And actually, this country was chugging along fine until about the 60's, when young, progressive policy started fucking it up to the point its at today. So I wouldnt say old people fuck it up and young people have to clean it up. MOST young people today consider themselves "progressive" and subscribe to the philosophy that has screwed this country up. Just saying.
Hope this thread made you feel better wreckingball. You sounded really pissed. :bar:
-
Congratulations!!
By implying that I am a hippie from reading my original post, you just made the "Dumb Fuck that I Hope Dies" list. A hippie would say the exact opposite of what I said. They want to extend Medicare and Healthcare to the old and poor, whereas I want to take it all away. So hows a bouts you gos and turns up ya Garth Brooks you fucking redneck and drive your Ford truck off a cliff.
The music sucks you fucking hippie.
-
The music sucks you fucking hippie.
(http://holidayeveryday.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/windowslivewriteryorkvillehippiedom-bafbyorkville1.jpg)
Hogbear shutting shit down.
-
It's about the money.
Slippery Skillet and the Bibbledey Bee Bops might make your pecker perk when you're sitting around in flannel and sweatpants in your mom's basement, but it's not paying the bills.
Advertisers aren't really falling all over themselves to market to the cheeto-snarfing hep cats who define their cool by how obscure the fucking band they like happens to be. Obscure means nobody knows (or gives half a shit).
Those radio stations have management that has to make a payday. They've also got sales guys with kids in school and mortgages to pay. When they're having to make their dimes in a competitive market by selling to Doobie Dave's Beer and Bong at $5 a pop, they can't survive.
Obscure music is obscure for a reason usually -- because it sucks.
Talk radio is fairly cheap to produce and maintain. It sells pretty easily. You can also sell country, classic rock and oldies because people listen. Advertisers like it when people listen.
And I agree with GH. Our grandparents left us one hell of a country. It's the flower power, live and let love generation that's hell bent on fucking things sideways.
We've got people making decisions now who've never had to sacrifice anything. Ever. They've led a life of privilege and never seen or even considered true suffering -- like the suffering our parents and grandparents did.
Indie music can eat shit and die.
-
OK. I have apparently missed the curve on this.
Indie music?
Does this mean that it has a lot of suitar in it and is played in my local filling station?
or
Is it really bad music made by people from Indiana?
-
It's about the money.
Slippery Skillet and the Bibbledey Bee Bops might make your pecker perk when you're sitting around in flannel and sweatpants in your mom's basement, but it's not paying the bills.
Old people got the money. When they die, they leave it to more old people. If the hippies would get a job and buy some shit they advertise on the hippie radio, then the hippie radio would still be there. But this ain't the gubment.
Free shit is usually free for a reason.
-
OK. I have apparently missed the curve on this.
Indie music?
Does this mean that it has a lot of suitar in it and is played in my local filling station?
or
Is it really bad music made by people from Indiana?
I'm pretty much guessing that Slippery Skillet and the Bibblety Bee Bops are from central Indiana.
-
It's about the money.
Slippery Skillet and the Bibbledey Bee Bops might make your pecker perk when you're sitting around in flannel and sweatpants in your mom's basement, but it's not paying the bills.
Advertisers aren't really falling all over themselves to market to the cheeto-snarfing hep cats who define their cool by how obscure the fucking band they like happens to be. Obscure means nobody knows (or gives half a shit).
Those radio stations have management that has to make a payday. They've also got sales guys with kids in school and mortgages to pay. When they're having to make their dimes in a competitive market by selling to Doobie Dave's Beer and Bong at $5 a pop, they can't survive.
Obscure music is obscure for a reason usually -- because it sucks.
Talk radio is fairly cheap to produce and maintain. It sells pretty easily. You can also sell country, classic rock and oldies because people listen. Advertisers like it when people listen.
And I agree with GH. Our grandparents left us one hell of a country. It's the flower power, live and let love generation that's hell bent on fucking things sideways.
We've got people making decisions now who've never had to sacrifice anything. Ever. They've led a life of privilege and never seen or even considered true suffering -- like the suffering our parents and grandparents did.
Indie music can eat shit and die.
Make sure to rock the black socks and sandals when you shake your fist at the whippersnappers.
-
It's about the money.
Slippery Skillet and the Bibbledey Bee Bops might make your pecker perk when you're sitting around in flannel and sweatpants in your mom's basement, but it's not paying the bills.
Advertisers aren't really falling all over themselves to market to the cheeto-snarfing hep cats who define their cool by how obscure the phuking band they like happens to be. Obscure means nobody knows (or gives half a poop).
Those radio stations have management that has to make a payday. They've also got sales guys with kids in school and mortgages to pay. When they're having to make their dimes in a competitive market by selling to Doobie Dave's Beer and Bong at $5 a pop, they can't survive.
Obscure music is obscure for a reason usually -- because it sucks.
Talk radio is fairly cheap to produce and maintain. It sells pretty easily. You can also sell country, classic rock and oldies because people listen. Advertisers like it when people listen.
And I agree with GH. Our grandparents left us one hell of a country. It's the flower power, live and let love generation that's hell bent on phuking things sideways.
We've got people making decisions now who've never had to sacrifice anything. Ever. They've led a life of privilege and never seen or even considered true suffering -- like the suffering our parents and grandparents did.
Indie music can eat poop and die.
Beat me to it.
As I was reading the original post, I was thinking the same thing. I mean, is it possible the "suits in New York" have some inside information on the station? Like maybe that it's loosing money because there were only 17 wreckingball's out there listening?
Maybe FM talk isn't solution, but it's obvious this Indian music was no goldmine. (yes, WB, I understand it wasn't actually Indian music, so save the "drive off a cliff" suggestion).
-
SO now I am really confused. Indian music?
Dots or feathers?
-
Make sure to rock the black socks and sandals when you shake your fist at the whippersnappers.
Get the fuck off my lawn.
-
Get off my fucking lawn.
The only part of your post that I would take particular issue with is:
Obscure music is obscure for a reason usually -- because it sucks
This is complete shit...mostly because it's wholly subjective. In my opinion 99.9% of mainstream, radio-friendly music sucks. It is geared to appeal to the masses...the lowest common denominator.
-
The only part of your post that I would take particular issue with is:
This is complete shit...mostly because it's wholly subjective. In my opinion 99.9% of mainstream, radio-friendly music sucks. It is geared to appeal to the masses...the lowest common denominator.
When is Miss Montana rocking the next mall tour?
-
When is Miss Montana rocking the next mall tour?
People's exhibit "A".
-
The only part of your post that I would take particular issue with is:
This is complete shit...mostly because it's wholly subjective. In my opinion 99.9% of mainstream, radio-friendly music sucks. It is geared to appeal to the masses...the lowest common denominator.
Depends on the definition of "sucks"
Popular music is popular for a reason. People like it.
Do I consider Lady GaGa a musical genius? Nope. I hate the below mentioned Montana.
Maybe their music isn't the most technically proficient or whatever, but it resonates. People like it, people buy it. It sells advertising, it keeps people employed. Slippery Skillet and the Greasebags barely pays the rent.
Asparagus is good for you and some people like it. But there's not a McParagus on every corner. Because it sucks and only a handful of people will buy it.
It's basic economics. If you're independently wealthy and don't give a shit if your radio station loses money and your people starve to death, you can play all the Doobie McDooster shit you want. If you're in business to make money you've got to cater to as big a market as possible.
If he wants to listen to niche music then he can get a satellite radio. It survives there.
-
Hi,
I'm old and don't understand today's youth...So I side with Hannah Montana and Lady Gaga.
Signed,
90% of the people in this thread.
-
Hi,
I'm old and don't understand today's youth...So I side with Hannah Montana and Lady Gaga.
Signed,
90% of the people in this thread.
It was pretty crazy of me to tell a bunch of old people that we need to start killing off old people. What was I thinking? Maybe I should pay Gene Simmons to tell them, I'm sure they would listen to him and go ahead and kill themselves.
-
Hi,
I'm old and don't understand today's youth...So I side with Hannah Montana and Lady Gaga.
Signed,
90% of the people in this thread.
It's basic economics. If you're independently wealthy and don't give a shit if your radio station loses money and your people starve to death, you can play all the Doobie McDooster shit you want. If you're in business to make money you've got to cater to as big a market as possible.
This.
I take exception that most of the music is on there is bad, but it really is a matter of simple economics.
Not my place to supply every dill hole on there with success.
If you want 200 options of the coffee house I would take the man's suggestion and go to satellite.
-
Hi,
I'm old and don't understand today's youth...So I side with Hannah Montana and Lady Gaga.
Signed,
90% of the people in this thread.
Fuck your reality...I like me some Taylor Swift too.
-
Depends on the definition of "sucks"
Popular music is popular for a reason. People like it.
Do I consider Lady GaGa a musical genius? Nope. I hate the below mentioned Montana.
Maybe their music isn't the most technically proficient or whatever, but it resonates. People like it, people buy it. It sells advertising, it keeps people employed. Slippery Skillet and the Greasebags barely pays the rent.
Asparagus is good for you and some people like it. But there's not a McParagus on every corner. Because it sucks and only a handful of people will buy it.
It's basic economics. If you're independently wealthy and don't give a shit if your radio station loses money and your people starve to death, you can play all the Doobie McDooster shit you want. If you're in business to make money you've got to cater to as big a market as possible.
If he wants to listen to niche music then he can get a satellite radio. It survives there.
Jeezus, for someone who is on everyone else's case about their reading comprehension, you need to look in a mirror.
Your first sentence should have been the sum total of your post. I said as much in my post. In fact, I said I agreed with 90% of your diatribe.
-
This.
I take exception that most of the music is on there is bad, but it really is a matter of simple economics.
Not my place to supply every dill hole on there with success.
If you want 200 options of the coffee house I would take the man's suggestion and go to satellite.
Isn't that the problem though? You should play what is good, rather than what is shoved down your throat.
-
Hi,
I'm old and don't understand today's youth...So I side with Hannah Montana and Lady Gaga.
Signed,
90% of the people in this thread.
It's not black and white like that. I like all kinds of music. Some of Gaga's shit is catchy. Not going to change the world, but it's got bounce. I've got a nine year old and a nineteen year old so I get to hear all the "new" stuff.
The list of music I enjoy is ridiculously varied. I flip from Zydeco to DMX to Neil Diamond to Skid Row to Thomas Dolby to Christina to the Gap Band to Sinatra to Blue Oyster Cult to...
I'm not demanding that Birmingham keep a Zydeco station running, though, just because I enjoy some Boo Zoo. I understand that most people will probably say it sucks. I know it couldn't sustain the sales to stay on the air.
-
Jeezus, for someone who is on everyone else's case about their reading comprehension, you need to look in a mirror.
Your first sentence should have been the sum total of your post. I said as much in my post. In fact, I said I agreed with 90% of your diatribe.
Moses in a purple chariot, it's not about you.
It's fucking BORING around here today. I'm just talking. Not to you, necessarily, but in general.
-
Moses in a purple chariot, it's not about you.
It's fucking BORING around here today. I'm just talking. Not to you, necessarily, but in general.
It's always about me.
You're correct, it is boring around here. Welcome to the off-season.
-
You guys are making up some of those ridiculous names, right?
BooZoo?
Slippery Skillet?
Greasebags?
Signed,
OldGye
-
Well, when all is said and done. feels pretty good to have a thread responded to. Must be that extra beer can beside the name. :thumsup:
-
Wish it was 105.5 FM WNSP that was getting the death nail.
-
Wish it was 105.5 FM WNSP that was getting the death nail.
Damn straight.
I was on the road last week and when Lee and Roger's show came on I turned it off within five seconds. Quickest rejection ever.
Roger's big dumb ass opened the show with his redneck impersonation of Robin Williams.
"Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuud MAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNIN' MO-BEEEEEEEEEEEEELL!
Click.
It's the worst show in the history of sports talk radio. The contempt little Shervanian has for Roger is palpable.
-
I'm ready to evacuate the dance floor with all this blah, blah, blah.
-
I'm ready to evacuate the dance floor with all this blah, blah, blah.
What a coincidence!
I am ready to evacuate my bowels.
-
You guys are making up some of those ridiculous names, right?
BooZoo?
Slippery Skillet?
Greasebags?
Signed,
OldGye
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eWAJaEsqVdI/SkFvM3wWLuI/AAAAAAAAAO0/qNGPWEvnl9I/s200/Boozoo+Chavis+-+Who+Stole+My+Monkey.bmp)
boo zoo chavis
musical genius
-
Jack Johnson has Bubble Toes.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eWAJaEsqVdI/SkFvM3wWLuI/AAAAAAAAAO0/qNGPWEvnl9I/s200/Boozoo+Chavis+-+Who+Stole+My+Monkey.bmp)
boo zoo chavis
musical genius
^^^This^^^
-
You old farts know not of which you speak.
As wreckingball mentioned in the first post, there was a distinct market for Live 100.5. There were no other alternatives for alternative. Talk radio? Obviously, the suits are basing talk radio numbers off of JOX. I'm sure JOX does quite well. There's a ton of people obsessed with college football in this city. Just because that does well doesn't mean any old hack talking into a microphone about anything will automatically be successful. First they took the X, then they took 105.5 the Vulcan and turned it into some shit-tacular talk radio. How's that working out for them? Has anyone even ever listened to that station?
Because I'm not old, everyone I know listened to 100.5 primarily.
Facebook says there are 15,732 people in the Birmingham area that cared enough about trying to save the station that they joined this facebook group.
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=live+100.5&init=quick# (http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=live+100.5&init=quick#)!/group.php?gid=326223102222&ref=ss
There are probably double that that listen to the station regularly but don't give a shit about facebook groups (myself), or those that realized it was a lost cause (again, myself), those that aren't on facebook, or those that didn't even know they were going off the air.
And the fact that popular = good? In the realm of music?
Wow.
Kesha > The White Stripes, for example?
Wow.
-
Maybe instead of having a rally on facebook those 15,732 people should have supported the businesses who advertised on the station more.
Just sayin'.
-
Maybe instead of having a rally on facebook those 15,732 people should have supported the businesses who advertised on the station more.
Just sayin'.
15,785 now. Still not including me.
Even though it's already gone, so obviously a lost cause, over 50 people have joined that group in the 15 minutes since my last post.
-
15,785 now. Still not including me.
Even though it's already gone, so obviously a lost cause, over 50 people have joined that group in the 15 minutes since my last post.
You do realize that using facebook as a polling device is akin to using wikipedia as a source right?
Just totally fucking wrong.
I am digging this. Consequences for their inaction.
-
I'm still hearing the shit-tastic music on 100.5 as I type.
-
You old farts no not of which you speak.
First they took the X, then they took 105.5 the Vulcan and turned it into some shit-tacular talk radio. How's that working out for them? Has anyone even ever listened to that station?
I started listening to the X when it was The Bear...so don't you start sassing me young man.
I agree with Sani though, groups supporting something do virtually no good. Those 15,000 plus needed to buy from their advertisers...or help sponsor it themselves.
-
You do realize that using facebook as a polling device is akin to using wikipedia as a source right?
Just totally fucking wrong.
I am digging this. Consequences for their inaction.
You got a problem with social networks? Just because 75% of those people are fucking losers who accept every friend request (because they didn't have any real friends in high school) and join every group presented to them doesn't mean they don't care about slippery skillet and the elevator tones.
Asshole.
-
You got a problem with social networks? Just because 75% of those people are fucking losers who accept every friend request (because they didn't have any real friends in high school) and join every group presented to doesn't mean they don't care about slippery skillet and the elevator tones.
Asshole.
Is there a group that I can join?
-
You do realize that using facebook as a polling device is akin to using wikipedia as a source right?
Just totally fucking wrong.
I am digging this. Consequences for their inaction.
Yes. Both are way more precise than given credit for.
First, facebook. Do you think any of those people joined a group asking to save Live 100.5 that didn't give a shit about Live 100.5? Why the hell would they sign up for it then? If anything, there are a lot more people that listen to Live 100.5 and aren't members of that facebook group, so it's under representative.
Secondly, since you brought Wikipedia into this, this is a peeve of mine that I will now rant on. Wikipedia has this notorious reputation for being incorrect, which is greatly exaggerated and undue. When have you ever seen an incorrect statement on Wikipedia? Yeah, anyone can post anything, but those dumb or inaccurate things are taken down almost instantly.
This study was done 5 years ago, and since then Wikipedia's reliability has only improved.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)
Or perhaps a more accurate article :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)
-
And I'm not advocating that them signing up for a facebook group is getting any political action done.
I'm not saying they will save the station by joining the group. In fact, I specifically said the opposite.
I'm just saying the claim that "no one listened to that crap because it was indie garbage which means no one listens to it", is just plain stupid. People were listening.
-
Yes. Both are way more precise than given credit for.
First, facebook. Do you think any of those people joined a group asking to save Live 100.5 that didn't give a shit about Live 100.5? Why the hell would they sign up for it then? If anything, there are a lot more people that listen to Live 100.5 and aren't members of that facebook group, so it's under representative.
Secondly, since you brought Wikipedia into this, this is a peeve of mine that I will now rant on. Wikipedia has this notorious reputation for being incorrect, which is greatly exaggerated and undue. When have you ever seen an incorrect statement on Wikipedia? Yeah, anyone can post anything, but those dumb or inaccurate things are taken down almost instantly.
This study was done 5 years ago, and since then Wikipedia's reliability has only improved.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html)
Or perhaps a more accurate article :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)
When Wikipedia is accepted as a general reference for a research paper, doctoral thesis, or anywhere in between then I will give it's due. I like Wikipedia. Use it all the time to look things up. Doesn't mean I am going to cite it as a source. No doubt in my mind that one day it or another internet based fact machine will be accepted into the ivory halls of academia. Until that happens I ain't using it as a source.
As far as your rationalization of numbers on facebook, see sarcastic Token response above.
Still it's gone and gone because of the man. The man took it away from you honest folk. If I were all tore up over it I would support the products being advertised. march in the streets join a facebook group.
-
Mainstream music is going to sell more, regardless of whether it's "good" or not. As Wes pointed out, the quality of music is mostly subjective. There are mathematical reasons as to why a collection of notes is consonant or dissonant, and almost every person will agree that dissonant sounds are horrendous, but the quality of a properly written song (meaning that it follows the mathematical rules of chord progression, consonance, etc.) is going to be subjective.
With that being said, the obvious way to make money with a radio station is to play mainstream music. "Good" or not, it sells, and it brings your station popularity, even if it's only popularity with teens. This isn't what happened with 100.5.
100.5 turned into a talk radio station that has to compete with NPR, JOX and other talk radio stations that are already in the area. Is this better than filling a niche market for indie music? Maybe, I don't know; I don't have the figures for Birmingham talk radio stations. However, what I do know is that they turned a music station into a talk radio station, and that seems like silly management to me.
I don't know many people who listen to talk radio. Of those who do, they either listen to sports radio, or they're older and they listen to the news. Within the city of Birmingham, 66.1% of the population is 44 or under. Only 13.5% are 65 or older. The median age is 34.
Based upon my experiences, most older people who listen to talk radio do so for the news or political commentary, both of which they probably get from the television moreso than the radio. Afterall, most people don't listen to radio in their homes. If you're retired and are at home, in all likelihood you're going to be watching the television.
I can see why 100.5 stopped playing indie music. However, I just don't see the reason why they decided to go to talk radio. It would make more sense to me if they had switched to mainstream, classic rock, rock, country, rap or some other genre of music. I honestly don't see how talk radio is going to make them more money than a music station would.
-
When Wikipedia is accepted as a general reference for a research paper, doctoral thesis, or anywhere in between then I will give it's due.
It was accepted as a reference for research papers that I did in communications and philosophy courses.
No doubt in my mind that one day it or another internet based fact machine will be accepted into the ivory halls of academia. Until that happens I ain't using it as a source.
I think we're already there. Some uber-nerd developed Wolfram|Alpha, which is a search engine that uses legitimate sources and algorithms to give you an answer to any question you have. Pretty useful tool.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/ (http://www.wolframalpha.com/)
-
And the fact that popular = good? In the realm of music?
Wow.
I don't think anyone really argued this as their main point anywhere. Maybe it got confused somewhere, but it wasn't anyone's main point.
The main point was...popular = money. Good or not, "indie" gets it's reputation from appealing to smaller crowds. That's why it isn't main stream. Do you see what I'm typing here? "smaller crowds"..."isn't mainstream". Those aren't good things necessarily in a town like Birmingham. Sure, in larger populated cities, there are enough fans to support a station.
So regardless of how good the music may have been on there, and regardless of the 15,000 facebookers, there evidently wasn't enough of a crowd to please a bean counter somewhere who probably listens to Yani. He doesn't care what the "youth of today" listens to. He only cares if the bills get paid.
-
16000 / 660000 (approx population of Jefferson Co) = 2.3 % = Nobody GIVES a shit.
Chizad argument = failed logic and flawed premise
-
16000 / 660000 (approx population of Jefferson Co) = 2.3 % = Nobody GIVES a shit.
Chizad argument = failed logic and flawed premise
.....
-
.....
2.3% is essentially nobody Dr. Semantics
-
I don't think anyone really argued this as their main point anywhere. Maybe it got confused somewhere, but it wasn't anyone's main point.
The main point was...popular = money. Good or not, "indie" gets it's reputation from appealing to smaller crowds. That's why it isn't main stream. Do you see what I'm typing here? "smaller crowds"..."isn't mainstream". Those aren't good things necessarily in a town like Birmingham. Sure, in larger populated cities, there are enough fans to support a station.
So regardless of how good the music may have been on there, and regardless of the 15,000 facebookers, there evidently wasn't enough of a crowd to please a bean counter somewhere who probably listens to Yani. He doesn't care what the "youth of today" listens to. He only cares if the bills get paid.
Obscure music is obscure for a reason usually -- because it sucks.
16000 / 660000 (approx population of Jefferson Co) = 2.3 % = Nobody GIVES a shit.
Chizad argument = failed logic and flawed premise
Fer fucksake. People took the facebook group thing to mean way more than I was suggesting.
There's a lot of fuckin people that listened to the station. I didn't imply that it was an exact population of active listeners of 100.5. I was only making a point that relative to facebook groups, especially those that pertain to an issue relevant only to a relatively small number of people, and has only been an issue for a couple of days, that's a large number of members. As Wes said, for someone that loves to point at others' failed comprehension, you sure didn't pick up on that when I said it explicitly.
There are probably double that that listen to the station regularly but don't give a shit about facebook groups (myself), or those that realized it was a lost cause (again, myself), those that aren't on facebook, or those that didn't even know they were going off the air.
So wait, I'm confused. Is the fact that 2.3% of Birmingham natives on facebook are a member of that group a scientific fucking poll, or is that a laughable example? I'm pretty sure I suggested all along that it's somewhere in between.
I'm fairly positive that less than 2.3% of Birmingham's population has a fan page on their facebook account for being a fan of eating, breathing, sleeping, and shitting, but I'd bet you more than that actually participate in said activities.
-
the population of Birmingham is closer to 230,000.
-
Fer fucksake. People took the facebook group thing to mean way more than I was suggesting.
There's a lot of fuckin people that listened to the station. I didn't imply that it was an exact population of active listeners of 100.5. I was only making a point that relative to facebook groups, especially those that pertain to an issue relevant only to a relatively small number of people, and has only been an issue for a couple of days, that's a large number of members. As Wes said, for someone that loves to point at others' failed comprehension, you sure didn't pick up on that when I said it explicitly.
So wait, I'm confused. Is the fact that 2.3% of Birmingham natives on facebook are a member of that group a scientific fucking poll, or is that a laughable example? I'm pretty sure I suggested all along that it's somewhere in between.
I'm fairly positive that less than 2.3% of Birmingham's population has a fan page on their facebook account for being a fan of eating, breathing, sleeping, and shitting, but I'd bet you more than that actually participate in said activities.
This is what you call a reach.
What was the Arbitron book on 100.5? It pretty much sucked.
http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm (http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm)
It ranked 17th in the latest ratings available. It was the lowest rated music station on the dial, other than a mexican station and an urban oldies station. "A lot of fucking people" DIDN'T listen to that station. That's the point. Just because the tiny (and insignificant, honestly) group you hang with does simply doesn't speak to the overall dynamic.
Here's an insult for you. A true niche station, WJLD, out drew it. WJLD is a fucking AM station. It plays the blues.
Here's another insult that shows you just how "fucking few" people listened. Of the ten stations ranked below WWMM in the Arbitron book, seven were AM stations. Do cars even come with AM radios any more? Are there any AM stations that have a reach beyond 15 miles from the tower other than the Texas, Louisiana and Illinios stations that crop up in the middle of the night? The three FM stations were talk, religious and talk. WERC was the lowest.
WWMM drew roughly the same numbers as WAPI's talk radio station. Talk radio is cheaper to produce, cheaper to air and easier to sell.
Economics lesson.
And the music sucked. That's clear from the ratings. Facebook merely confirms that about 2% of the population gave a shit, which in statistical terms is essentially nobody.
I'm really not denigrating the music, that's just for fun. It's really nothing but an exercise in market realities. Doesn't matter how good (or bad) the music is. If you can't get enough people to listen to it -- and they couldn't -- then it won't sustain.
This, my friends, is the true genius of KISS. No matter what you may think of their musical abilities, they found a way to get people to listen and have survived -- nay, thrived -- for longer than most of you have been alive.
-
the population of Birmingham is closer to 230,000.
What part of Jefferson County did you fail to understand? I only took Jefferson and didn't factor in the population of Shelby, Walker, Blount, St. Clair and Tuscaloosa -- all of which could potentially fall within the station't range.
2.3% was a very generous estimate.
-
What part of Jefferson County did you fail to understand? I only took Jefferson and didn't factor in the population of Shelby, Walker, Blount, St. Clair and Tuscaloosa -- all of which could potentially fall within the station't range.
2.3% was a very generous estimate.
That was directed toward :thumsup: because he confused Jeffco and Birmingham in the post above where I said the approximate pop. of Birmingham. I bet you suck as much dick as Peter Criss, you fucking douche bag.
-
The Facebook group was started by the owner of a company that was one of the main advertisers on Live 100.5, so apparently his business was seeing a big improvement since he started advertising there. Every event that Live 100.5 has ever thrown has been packed out. I just don't think Arbitron is a true scientific measuring stick.
-
That was directed toward :thumsup: because he confused Jeffco and Birmingham in the post above where I said the approximate pop. of Birmingham. I bet you suck as much tool as Peter Criss, you phuking douche bag.
Hey - no jankin on the man's costume now.
-
That was directed toward :thumsup: because he confused Jeffco and Birmingham in the post above where I said the approximate pop. of Birmingham. I bet you suck as much dick as Peter Criss, you fucking douche bag.
If you don't quote, you don't know.
And yeah, I do. Zero.
-
The Facebook group was started by the owner of a company that was one of the main advertisers on Live 100.5, so apparently his business was seeing a big improvement since he started advertising there. Every event that Live 100.5 has ever thrown has been packed out. I just don't think Arbitron is a true scientific measuring stick.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
It's the only one that really matters. It's what determines how much stations can charge for their advertising. It's what they use when they make talent decisions. It's what they use to make programming decisions.
I'm sure Marble Earl's Hemp and Hash probably did get a boost in sales, but again -- so what? Minority doesn't rule.
-
This is what you call a reach.
What was the Arbitron book on 100.5? It pretty much sucked.
http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm (http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm)
It ranked 17th in the latest ratings available. It was the lowest rated music station on the dial, other than a mexican station and an urban oldies station. "A lot of fucking people" DIDN'T listen to that station. That's the point. Just because the tiny (and insignificant, honestly) group you hang with does simply doesn't speak to the overall dynamic.
Here's an insult for you. A true niche station, WJLD, out drew it. WJLD is a fucking AM station. It plays the blues.
Here's another insult that shows you just how "fucking few" people listened. Of the ten stations ranked below WWMM in the Arbitron book, seven were AM stations. Do cars even come with AM radios any more? Are there any AM stations that have a reach beyond 15 miles from the tower other than the Texas, Louisiana and Illinios stations that crop up in the middle of the night? The three FM stations were talk, religious and talk. WERC was the lowest.
WWMM drew roughly the same numbers as WAPI's talk radio station. Talk radio is cheaper to produce, cheaper to air and easier to sell.
Economics lesson.
You win the radio industry knowledge portion of the round. This station was obviously under-performing and a business decision was made to...uh...address the situation.
Nobody is debating that this is a business. I think you guys (looking your way, K) are arguing to argue. Yes, 15K people is a lot of people. No, in the overall context of a radio station's market share, it is not a significant number.
And the music sucked. That's clear from the ratings.
..........AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND....this is where the real argument starts. <DISCLAIMER: ALL DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE ARTISTIC MERITS OF ANY PAINTING/SCULPTURE/COMPOSITION/LITERATURE/THEATRICAL PIECE/ETC are subjective and NO ONE WILL "WIN">
In my own opinion (see the disclaimer as to subjectivity), any work of music and it's degree of "suckage" is a function wholly independent of its "ratings".
This, my friends, is the true genius of KISS. No matter what you may think of their musical abilities, they found a way to get people to listen and have survived -- nay, thrived -- for longer than most of you have been alive.
And this, my friend, is why you catch shit for the KISS love. I know you love it, so this was more a lesson for the slow folk in class.
-
You win the radio industry knowledge portion of the round. This station was obviously under-performing and a business decision was made to...uh...address the situation.
Nobody is debating that this is a business. I think you guys (looking your way, K) are arguing to argue. Yes, 15K people is a lot of people. No, in the overall context of a radio station's market share, it is not a significant number.
..........AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND....this is where the real argument starts. <DISCLAIMER: ALL DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE ARTISTIC MERITS OF ANY PAINTING/SCULPTURE/COMPOSITION/LITERATURE/THEATRICAL PIECE/ETC are subjective and NO ONE WILL "WIN">
In my own opinion (see the disclaimer as to subjectivity), any work of music and it's degree of "suckage" is a function wholly independent of its "ratings".
And this, my friend, is why you catch shit for the KISS love. I know you love it, so this was more a lesson for the slow folk in class.
HAHAHAHAHA.... I win.
I said I was saying the music sucked just to kick the anthill. I already admitted that. I don't even have any idea what bands they play on that station. And I really don't care. I find it amusing when people start to rail about serving "niche" markets. It only works if the niche is big enough and supportive enough to sustain the medium. In this case, it clearly wasn't. Arbitron proved that. (I forgot in my list in another thread that I had a radio show and sold radio ads for it for a while. AM station playing 70s in a small market... very small).
15,000 is a lot of people. Sure it is. Or it's not. Depends on the circumstance. 15,000 for an Auburn basketball game would be a lot of people. 15,000 at an Auburn football game would be a disaster and get people fired. 15,000 people voting in a Jefferson County election and you could end up with a Langford. Oh, wait...
It's all about context.
Getting 15,000 people to sign a Facebook petition or whatever is insignificant in a market that probably contains a million people.
-
HAHAHAHAHA.... I win.
Except when you don't.
I said I was saying the music sucked just to kick the anthill. I already admitted that.
Right. We already left aside the subjective quality of music. That was clear before you "admitted that."
I don't even have any idea what bands they play on that station. And I really don't care. I find it amusing when people start to rail about serving "niche" markets. It only works if the niche is big enough and supportive enough to sustain the medium. In this case, it clearly wasn't. Arbitron proved that. (I forgot in my list in another thread that I had a radio show and sold radio ads for it for a while. AM station playing 70s in a small market... very small).
Right....the business part. We all concede it to you. You've done everyting. You are captain of many industries. We get it...and...more importantly to this discussion...I conceded that to you as well.
15,000 is a lot of people. Sure it is. Or it's not. Depends on the circumstance. 15,000 for an Auburn basketball game would be a lot of people. 15,000 at an Auburn football game would be a disaster and get people fired. 15,000 people voting in a Jefferson County election and you could end up with a Langford. Oh, wait...
It's all about context.
Getting 15,000 people to sign a Facebook petition or whatever is insignificant in a market that probably contains a million people.
Right. You are 100% correct. It's too bad that this point was made previously. By me.
So. What's left? What do we do for the next 7 months?
-
I'm going to make movies.
My last effort was ranked by Rotten Tomatoes as the worst movie of the previous decade. I got nowhere to go but up!
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/10/ (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/10/)
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)
Critics Consensus: A startlingly inept film, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever offers overblown, wall-to-wall action without a hint of wit, coherence, style, or originality.
Synopsis: In the mystifying opening sequence of BALLISTIC: ECKS VS. SEVER, a double kidnapping takes place on a rainy night in Vancouver with a minimal amount of wasted time and a maximum amount of violence. A little boy is picked... [More]
Starring: Lucy Liu, Antonio Banderas, Gregg Henry
Directed By: Kaos
-
I don't think anyone REALLY disputes the economic reasons for changing. But I do find it laughable that someone might suggest keeping it running because there are a few, very few folks who like it and since it was the only one of its kind, they somehow have a duty to keep it running. This is America, if you want to piss your money away trying to keep a business going that fills a void but loses money, you have that right. But to insinuate that it is wrong not to do that, is well...stupid.
You guys will have to now get your music from some underground source now.
-
It was accepted as a reference for research papers that I did in communications and philosophy courses.
At what institution? DeVry? Wikipedia is a great starting point but that's it.
This is the currently accepted format....
1
Jim Zwick, Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935, http://www.rochester.ican.net/~fjzwick/ail98-35.html (http://www.rochester.ican.net/~fjzwick/ail98-35.html) (May 1997).
A direct and specific link to individual data. Not a general one. General knowledge is not usually cited.
I think we're already there. Some uber-nerd developed Wolfram|Alpha, which is a search engine that uses legitimate sources and algorithms to give you an answer to any question you have. Pretty useful tool.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/ (http://www.wolframalpha.com/)
I have used Wolfman some but it is in it's infancy. There will have to be major overhauling take place before it's a mainline tool.
A research paper without footnotes is like a man without balls. Useless. Totally fucking useless.
I am willing to defer to the Grammar Wench on this one though.
What say ye?
-
I don't think anyone REALLY disputes the economic reasons for changing. But I do find it laughable that someone might suggest keeping it running because there are a few, very few folks who like it and since it was the only one of its kind, they somehow have a duty to keep it running. This is America, if you want to piss your money away trying to keep a business going that fills a void but loses money, you have that right. But to insinuate that it is wrong not to do that, is well...stupid.
You guys will have to now get your music from some underground source now.
THIS
Wes, remember the business decision logic you used when I had a contract terminated last week? "Its just good business" ? Thats all that happened here. The pubic spoke and they made a business decision. And yes - I know you conceded that. :) In the overall grand scheme of life, aren't most things subjective? Thats why public opinion decides most everything (ratings, polls, elections, sales, etc). I love capitalism :clap:
-
THIS
Wes, remember the business decision logic you used when I had a contract terminated last week? "Its just good business" ? Thats all that happened here. The pubic spoke and they made a business decision. And yes - I know you conceded that. :) In the overall grand scheme of life, aren't most things subjective? Thats why public opinion decides most everything (ratings, polls, elections, sales, etc). I love capitalism :clap:
Obama heard that... You better watch your back.
-
And yes - I know you conceded that. :)
Then why fucking bring it up?
I never got involved in the radio station argument. I could give half a hairy shit what format any radio station is. I don't listen to the radio (thanks, Clear Channel).
The only contribution I made to the thread was in response to Kaos's ridiculous assertions that obscure music sucks and mainstream music is "good".
-
Then why phuking bring it up?
I never got involved in the radio station argument. I could give half a hairy poop what format any radio station is. I don't listen to the radio (thanks, Clear Channel).
The only contribution I made to the thread was in response to Kaos's ridiculous assertions that obscure music sucks and mainstream music is "good".
Understood....and agree. Most mainstream music produced TODAY sucks balls from a "musical" perspective. I just don't consider synthesized computer crap with rhyming words "good music"...I.e. - Brittany Spears, XYZ Boy Band, The Latest Cool Rapper, Most of the idiots on American Idol..etc etc... Only ELO can get away with synthesizing.
:bow: Jeff Lynne (http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/e/ELO/sq-jeff_lynne_now-psp.jpg)
I like a lot of what was mainstream back in the day. That was the good chit.
-
At what institution? DeVry? Wikipedia is a great starting point but that's it.
Vanderbilt, actually.
This is the currently accepted format....
1
Jim Zwick, Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935, http://www.rochester.ican.net/~fjzwick/ail98-35.html (http://www.rochester.ican.net/~fjzwick/ail98-35.html) (May 1997).
A direct and specific link to individual data. Not a general one. General knowledge is not usually cited.
This link doesn't work...? So I can't determine whether it's general knowledge on the topic or something specific. Regardless, there are times in a paper (especially during the introduction) when general knowledge must be cited to when you are setting up the overall topic. It's no different than when people would cite to an encyclopedia for general information.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia has specific information as well, especially when it comes to people and historical events. The date of death of a movie star? Specific information that Wikipedia has. Stats for athletes? Specific information that Wikipedia has. Movies that Ron Jeremy has been in? Specific information that Wikipedia has.
Whether the information is specific or general, however, has no affect on its reliability in academia or elsewhere.
A research paper without footnotes is like a man without balls. Useless. Totally fucking useless.
Footnotes are merely citations to references, often with explanatory or quoted text. A reference, whether digital or tangible, is still a reference. I understand that you have spent most of your life viewing many digital references, including Wikipedia, as being unacceptable, but the times are a changin'.
-
Then why phuking bring it up?
I never got involved in the radio station argument. I could give half a hairy poop what format any radio station is. I don't listen to the radio (thanks, Clear Channel).
The only contribution I made to the thread was in response to Kaos's ridiculous assertions that obscure music sucks and mainstream music is "good".
I love the off-season threads, the ones where we all go that extra mile to argue/discuss things that would have been dropped or ignored in between the Georgia and Alabama games.
That being the case, I have one last interjection....I don't think Kaos meant obscure sucks and mainstream is "good" the way it was taken. It was in context to the radio station going under. To explain to ballwrecker that it was a business decision...he meant "no one" (the general public) was listening because obscure music sucks (to the general public), which is why mainstream is good (to the general public).
I think Kaos would agree with you, as do I, that the "general public" doesn't know a damn thing (see elections of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc). However, they are the ones that decides what stays and what goes (whether radio stations or presidents).
I know you know all that, I'm just saying I think you took Kaos' insult to "off the beaten path" music the wrong way.
By the way, your "You are captain of many industries" line was genius.
-
Actually, when I went on my original rant, I was just expressing my disdain for the decision made by citadel broadcasting because it meant taking away one of the few institutions that I found enjoyable in Birmingham, as well as my hatred of old people. I never said that the station was perfect, and I agree that some poor managerial decisions were made in regards to ad revenue. I don't believe it is a fair assumption to use the ratings argument because there are many factors involved that could attribute to this, like the fact that it is a relatively new radio station in terms of longevity or that one of the better djs on the station, Amber, was moved by citadel from 100.5 to some classic rock station. The misused data is many of these arguments makes me wonder if some of you actually attended any form of higher education at all. The facebook group size was meant to display that a number of Birmingham area citizens were fans of this radio station, its not meant to display all of the people that listen to the station. By comparing the group size to the population of birmingham, jefferson county, the state of alabama, or whatever population that you find to show the exaggerated stat that will support your argument isn't really a true gauge of anything at all.
We all know that this was a business decision, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good decision just because you don't like the type of music played on the station. The station had an ever growing loyal fan base and the main problem was with the mismanagement from citadel broadcasting. Regardless of the type of music you listen to, you can see that replacing this station, with what I am guessing will be the liberal counterpoint to the other talk radio stations we already have, cannot be the best decision. If anything, just alter the programming and bring in a better ad manager for you station.
If you really think that this station didn't have any listeners then you should have come to one of their many events or seen how many sold out concerts from this station bringing attention to relatively unknown artist.
And for all of you that say that nobody listens to indie music, I'm pretty sure that Vampire Weekend's album Contra was #1 on the billboard top 200 when it was released. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have to listen to your album to reach #1.
-
Vanderbilt, actually.
I am an old fogey I will admit but the professor who let that slide away should be shot.
This link doesn't work...? So I can't determine whether it's general knowledge on the topic or something specific.
The link does not work because it is there to show format not content.
Regardless, there are times in a paper (especially during the introduction) when general knowledge must be cited to when you are setting up the overall topic. It's no different than when people would cite to an encyclopedia for general information.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia has specific information as well, especially when it comes to people and historical events. The date of death of a movie star? Specific information that Wikipedia has. Stats for athletes? Specific information that Wikipedia has. Movies that Ron Jeremy has been in? Specific information that Wikipedia has.
Whether the information is specific or general, however, has no affect on its reliability in academia or elsewhere.
Footnotes are merely citations to references, often with explanatory or quoted text. A reference, whether digital or tangible, is still a reference. I understand that you have spent most of your life viewing many digital references, including Wikipedia, as being unacceptable, but the times are a changin'.
I agree that they are changing , hell maybe have already changed. And get the fuck off my lawn.
-
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3443/getoffmylawn.jpg)
-
Actually, when I went on my original rant, I was just expressing my disdain for the decision made by citadel broadcasting because it meant taking away one of the few institutions that I found enjoyable in Birmingham, as well as my hatred of old people. I never said that the station was perfect, and I agree that some poor managerial decisions were made in regards to ad revenue. I don't believe it is a fair assumption to use the ratings argument because there are many factors involved that could attribute to this, like the fact that it is a relatively new radio station in terms of longevity or that one of the better djs on the station, Amber, was moved by citadel from 100.5 to some classic rock station. The misused data is many of these arguments makes me wonder if some of you actually attended any form of higher education at all. The facebook group size was meant to display that a number of Birmingham area citizens were fans of this radio station, its not meant to display all of the people that listen to the station. By comparing the group size to the population of birmingham, jefferson county, the state of alabama, or whatever population that you find to show the exaggerated stat that will support your argument isn't really a true gauge of anything at all.
We all know that this was a business decision, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good decision just because you don't like the type of music played on the station. The station had an ever growing loyal fan base and the main problem was with the mismanagement from citadel broadcasting. Regardless of the type of music you listen to, you can see that replacing this station, with what I am guessing will be the liberal counterpoint to the other talk radio stations we already have, cannot be the best decision. If anything, just alter the programming and bring in a better ad manager for you station.
If you really think that this station didn't have any listeners then you should have come to one of their many events or seen how many sold out concerts from this station bringing attention to relatively unknown artist.
And for all of you that say that nobody listens to indie music, I'm pretty sure that Vampire Weekend's album Contra was #1 on the billboard top 200 when it was released. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have to listen to your album to reach #1.
Is it possible that the people that are actually in the "radio station" business and actually own radio stations may know more than you about how to run a profitable station?
This has nothing to do with what kind of music was on there and how good it was or how loyal of a following it had. How many people show up at a gathering couldn't be more irrelevant. The people that show up could be 85% of all the people that listen, who knows.
People that listen to indie music tend to be very passionate about it, and therefore more likely to show up at an event, or create a facebook group, or post about it on an Auburn football message board. Unfortunately, the passion doesn't affect the bottom line. You seem to grasp that it was a business decision, but your emotion is getting involved and telling you that it must have been a poor decision (because of how you feel about the station).
There used to be a hot dog place near where I work here in San Antonio. It was one of three places in the city that sold Vienna Beef hot dogs out of Chicago. They're the best in the world, one of my all-time favorite things to eat. They closed. Sure, there were a hand full of dedicated and passionate customers that ate there all the time, told all their friends, and always showed up when there were specials. But the fact was, there just weren't enough of us to support that guy, and he had to close his doors. Had he been in Atlanta or Dallas or somewhere else, there likely would have been enough support. But not here in San Antonio...no matter how good the hot dogs were or how many times I ate there, it didn't make them more profitable or desirable to the masses. A certain amount of "the masses" is what that guy needed, because there weren't enough "indie" Vienna Beef hot dog lovers like me out there.
So he closed his doors.
You station may have had great hot dogs and lots of dedicated regulars. But there just weren't enough of you to make it profitable.
So they closed their doors.
By the way.....what do you consider old?
-
So in summation he would like to show you his all beef frank and have you pay.
-
Is it possible that the people that are actually in the "radio station" business and actually own radio stations may know more than you about how to run a profitable station?
This has nothing to do with what kind of music was on there and how good it was or how loyal of a following it had. How many people show up at a gathering couldn't be more irrelevant. The people that show up could be 85% of all the people that listen, who knows.
People that listen to indie music tend to be very passionate about it, and therefore more likely to show up at an event, or create a facebook group, or post about it on an Auburn football message board. Unfortunately, the passion doesn't affect the bottom line. You seem to grasp that it was a business decision, but your emotion is getting involved and telling you that it must have been a poor decision (because of how you feel about the station).
There used to be a hot dog place near where I work here in San Antonio. It was one of three places in the city that sold Vienna Beef hot dogs out of Chicago. They're the best in the world, one of my all-time favorite things to eat. They closed. Sure, there were a hand full of dedicated and passionate customers that ate there all the time, told all their friends, and always showed up when there were specials. But the fact was, there just weren't enough of us to support that guy, and he had to close his doors. Had he been in Atlanta or Dallas or somewhere else, there likely would have been enough support. But not here in San Antonio...no matter how good the hot dogs were or how many times I ate there, it didn't make them more profitable or desirable to the masses. A certain amount of "the masses" is what that guy needed, because there weren't enough "indie" Vienna Beef hot dog lovers like me out there.
So he closed his doors.
You station may have had great hot dogs and lots of dedicated regulars. But there just weren't enough of you to make it profitable.
So they closed their doors.
By the way.....what do you consider old?
Kind of like Boardwalk Fries and Milos.....
-
Is it possible that the people that are actually in the "radio station" business and actually own radio stations may know more than you about how to run a profitable station?
This has nothing to do with what kind of music was on there and how good it was or how loyal of a following it had. How many people show up at a gathering couldn't be more irrelevant. The people that show up could be 85% of all the people that listen, who knows.
People that listen to indie music tend to be very passionate about it, and therefore more likely to show up at an event, or create a facebook group, or post about it on an Auburn football message board. Unfortunately, the passion doesn't affect the bottom line. You seem to grasp that it was a business decision, but your emotion is getting involved and telling you that it must have been a poor decision (because of how you feel about the station).
There used to be a hot dog place near where I work here in San Antonio. It was one of three places in the city that sold Vienna Beef hot dogs out of Chicago. They're the best in the world, one of my all-time favorite things to eat. They closed. Sure, there were a hand full of dedicated and passionate customers that ate there all the time, told all their friends, and always showed up when there were specials. But the fact was, there just weren't enough of us to support that guy, and he had to close his doors. Had he been in Atlanta or Dallas or somewhere else, there likely would have been enough support. But not here in San Antonio...no matter how good the hot dogs were or how many times I ate there, it didn't make them more profitable or desirable to the masses. A certain amount of "the masses" is what that guy needed, because there weren't enough "indie" Vienna Beef hot dog lovers like me out there.
So he closed his doors.
You station may have had great hot dogs and lots of dedicated regulars. But there just weren't enough of you to make it profitable.
So they closed their doors.
By the way.....what do you consider old?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html)
according to this article, I'm going to say they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
What do I consider old?
The number that comes to mind is 35 at the moment.
-
See there is the difference.
That article tells me that they stayed with loser stations too damn long.
I can also tell you that your perception of what is old will change throughout your life.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html)
according to this article, I'm going to say they don't know what the fuck they are doing.
We're in a recession; many companies have failed. In fact, the article points out that Citadel Broadcasting's bankruptcy "reflect(s) the troubles plaguing the radio industry amid steep declines in advertising revenue and big debt loads."
According to the Radio Business Report, financial problems are not plaguing broadcasting companies because of bad decisions they make with specific radio stations. Rather, there is simply an economic disaster that is affecting their ad revenue.
http://www.rbr.com/radio/21263.html (http://www.rbr.com/radio/21263.html)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/media/21citadel.html)
according to this article, I'm going to say they don't know what the phuk they are doing.
What do I consider old?
The number that comes to mind is 35 at the moment.
So all the "old" 35 year-olds like myself on here that are telling you the radio station was changed because of what was most likely a financially forced business decision are just crazy "old" people? You're telling us you should step in for these idiot Citadel Broadcasting morons and run the show?
The man who is too old to learn was probably always too old to learn. :poke:
-
So all the "old" 35 year-olds like myself on here that are telling you the radio station was changed because of what was most likely a financially forced business decision are just crazy "old" people? You're telling us you should step in for these idiot Citadel Broadcasting morons and run the show?
The man who is too old to learn was probably always too old to learn. :poke:
Sounds like old talk to me. Akin to words like "gobbledy gook", "googly moogly", and "soft core pornography".
-
35 is old? Damn......How old are you all? Just curious.
When I was in my 20's, I also thought I knew it all and could run the world. Its ok though - the tunnel vision gets wider as you get older. Sani is right.
Now, get off my lawn you whippersnappers.....
-
35 is old? Damn......How old are you all? Just curious.
When I was in my 20's, I also thought I knew it all and could run the world. Its ok though - the tunnel vision gets wider as you get older. Sani is right.
Now, get off my lawn you whippersnappers.....
You're too old to be on a message board if you're 35. If you're 35 and an active member of a message board, you're a loser and probably always have been.
-
You're too old to be on a message board if you're 35. If you're 35 and an active member of a message board, you're a loser and probably always have been.
Same things go for guys who wear pink shirts. ;)
-
35 is old? Damn......How old are you all? Just curious.
When I was in my 20's, I also thought I knew it all and could run the world. Its ok though - the tunnel vision gets wider as you get older. Sani is right.
Now, get off my lawn you whippersnappers.....
He picked 35 as "old" because he clicked on my profile and saw that I'm 35. I'm guessing most people here are upper 20s to mid 40s, with some exceptions here and there?
-
He picked 35 as "old" because he clicked on my profile and saw that I'm 35.
True, I looked at your profile and got your age, which is why I said, " at the moment." 35 really isn't old, unless you have been married with children long enough to have been broken by the constant nagging and stupidity that women and children bring into the situation.
-
Only ELO can get away with synthesizing.
ELO kicked ass!
-
It's funny, when I was in school I really thought 40 was old, couldn't imagine that I would possibly live that long. Now as I look back at the kids in school, it just doesn't seem possible that I am old enough to be their dad. BTW, turn that music down, it's way to loud.
-
turn that music down, it's way to loud.
and fer chrissakes, pull those damn pants up.
-
and fer chrissakes, pull those damn pants up.
You sure about that?
(http://www.whale-tail.com/2009/20090320/whale-tail-0001.jpg)
-
You sure about that?
(http://www.whale-tail.com/2009/20090320/whale-tail-0001.jpg)
Damn! I'd listen to indie music for that!
-
Damn! I'd listen to indie music for that!
Wtf ever. That thong would never fit you.
-
Actually, when I went on my original rant, I was just expressing my disdain for the decision made by citadel broadcasting because it meant taking away one of the few institutions that I found enjoyable in Birmingham, as well as my hatred of old people. I never said that the station was perfect, and I agree that some poor managerial decisions were made in regards to ad revenue. I don't believe it is a fair assumption to use the ratings argument because there are many factors involved that could attribute to this, like the fact that it is a relatively new radio station in terms of longevity or that one of the better djs on the station, Amber, was moved by citadel from 100.5 to some classic rock station. The misused data is many of these arguments makes me wonder if some of you actually attended any form of higher education at all. The facebook group size was meant to display that a number of Birmingham area citizens were fans of this radio station, its not meant to display all of the people that listen to the station. By comparing the group size to the population of birmingham, jefferson county, the state of alabama, or whatever population that you find to show the exaggerated stat that will support your argument isn't really a true gauge of anything at all.
We all know that this was a business decision, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good decision just because you don't like the type of music played on the station. The station had an ever growing loyal fan base and the main problem was with the mismanagement from citadel broadcasting. Regardless of the type of music you listen to, you can see that replacing this station, with what I am guessing will be the liberal counterpoint to the other talk radio stations we already have, cannot be the best decision. If anything, just alter the programming and bring in a better ad manager for you station.
If you really think that this station didn't have any listeners then you should have come to one of their many events or seen how many sold out concerts from this station bringing attention to relatively unknown artist.
And for all of you that say that nobody listens to indie music, I'm pretty sure that Vampire Weekend's album Contra was #1 on the billboard top 200 when it was released. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people have to listen to your album to reach #1.
Blah blah blah.
No, it's not fair to use objective, measurable criteria to determine performance.
Everybody should get a trophy. Why do teams even keep score? That's just mean. It damages self esteem.
-
You're too old to be on a message board if you're 35. If you're 35 and an active member of a message board, you're a loser and probably always have been.
I would think that the opposite is true. If you're under 35 you're less likely to be married. You're less likely to have things like a mortgage, braces, mini vans, dance lessons for the kids and college savings funds to pay for.
If you're under 35 you should be out chasing the dream (and tail) instead of sitting around in your mom's basement or your darkened dorm room looking at porn and contributing to a message board.
If you're over 35 your life is already pretty much laid out. You don't have the time or inclination to chase tail -- too expensive -- and you've risen to a point in your job where you can sit around the office and essentially do nothing all day.
So shut the fuck up and get out of my office.
-
I would think that the opposite is true. If you're under 35 you're less likely to be married. You're less likely to have things like a mortgage, braces, mini vans, dance lessons for the kids and college savings funds to pay for.
If you're under 35 you should be out chasing the dream (and tail) instead of sitting around in your mom's basement or your darkened dorm room looking at porn and contributing to a message board.
If you're over 35 your life is already pretty much laid out. You don't have the time or inclination to chase tail -- too expensive -- and you've risen to a point in your job where you can sit around the office and essentially do nothing all day.
So shut the phuk up and get out of my office.
You beat me to it....
If this is a sampling of the generation currently in their late teens/20's, then I can see how our country is going down the crapper. Makes perfect sense. Its all about Dave Matthews, John Mayer, the newest Berry Wheat Beer, questioning fucking everything just for the sake of doing it, bitching and moaning about the stupidest shit and wanting NO adversity. Like Kaos said - everyone doesnt make the team, everyone doesnt get a trophy. Sad. Fucking Sad. For those of you who are so glued into indie music, maybe you would like it up in Athens. Just a thought.
-
You beat me to it....
If this is a sampling of the generation currently in their late teens/20's, then I can see how our country is going down the crapper. Makes perfect sense. Its all about Dave Matthews, John Mayer, the newest Berry Wheat Beer, questioning fucking everything just for the sake of doing it, bitching and moaning about the stupidest shit and wanting NO adversity. Like Kaos said - everyone doesnt make the team, everyone doesnt get a trophy. Sad. Fucking Sad. For those of you who are so glued into indie music, maybe you would like it up in Athens. Just a thought.
Dave Matthews & John Mayer have got shit to do with 100.5.
You're confusing indie/progressive music with hippie bullshit. There's another active thread about that kind of garbage (read: String Cheese Incident) being fueled by posters in their 30's.
Everything else you said, well no, even that, I can't read without picturing in this voice.
(http://fabien.herbaut.free.fr/images/Abraham_Simpson.png)
-
You beat me to it....
If this is a sampling of the generation currently in their late teens/20's, then I can see how our country is going down the crapper. Makes perfect sense. Its all about Dave Matthews, John Mayer, the newest Berry Wheat Beer, questioning fucking everything just for the sake of doing it, bitching and moaning about the stupidest shit and wanting NO adversity. Like Kaos said - everyone doesnt make the team, everyone doesnt get a trophy. Sad. Fucking Sad. For those of you who are so glued into indie music, maybe you would like it up in Athens. Just a thought.
Irony.
-
You beat me to it....
If this is a sampling of the generation currently in their late teens/20's, then I can see how our country is going down the crapper. Makes perfect sense. Its all about Dave Matthews, John Mayer, the newest Berry Wheat Beer, questioning fucking everything just for the sake of doing it, bitching and moaning about the stupidest shit and wanting NO adversity. Like Kaos said - everyone doesnt make the team, everyone doesnt get a trophy. Sad. Fucking Sad. For those of you who are so glued into indie music, maybe you would like it up in Athens. Just a thought.
Very interesting theory that the country is going down the crapper because of teens and people in their twenties. In 2000, the largest 5-year age group was 35-to-39 year olds with 22.7 million people, representing
8.1 percent of the total population. The second largest 5-year age group was 40-to-44 year olds with 22.4 million people, representing 8.0 percent of the population. Of the 5-year age groups, 50-to-54 year olds experienced the largest percentage growth in population over the past decade, 55 percent. The second
fastest-growing group was the age group 45 to 49, which experienced a 45-percent increase. The median age in 2000 was 35.3. In 2007, it was 36.7.
My point of this long string of information is that the majority of people in the United States are not in their twenties. The teens have no ability to vote (aside from eighteen and nineteen year olds) and are not old enough to hold any office. People in their twenties are not old enough to hold most major offices, and our numbers are such that we could be (and often are) outvoted. If the country is going down the crapper, and if we are going to point out one age group to blame, then I highly doubt it's the twenties and teens; "bitching," "moaning," "questioning fucking everything," and listening to shitty music doesn't take a country down the crapper, and especially not when those you blame aren't even in positions of power to have any influence on the country's actual workings.
-
Rah, Rah, Rah! Let's just look at some of the people you guys think are screwing up our Country, and see if they are in their 20's.
Barrack O'Bama - Nope
Nancy Pelosia - Nope
Bob Riley - Nope
Pat Robertson - Nope
Dick Cheney - Nope
Joe Lieberman - Nope
George W. Bush - Nope
Hillary Clinton - Nope
Bill Clinton - Nope
Lady Gaga - Yes...well fuck, you got me on that one.
-
Oh, and John Mayer is 32. He's one of "you guys." I guess you can claim Dave Matthews is just an old fogey, though, since he is 43.
-
Very interesting theory that the country is going down the crapper because of teens and people in their twenties. In 2000, the largest 5-year age group was 35-to-39 year olds with 22.7 million people, representing
8.1 percent of the total population. The second largest 5-year age group was 40-to-44 year olds with 22.4 million people, representing 8.0 percent of the population. Of the 5-year age groups, 50-to-54 year olds experienced the largest percentage growth in population over the past decade, 55 percent. The second
fastest-growing group was the age group 45 to 49, which experienced a 45-percent increase. The median age in 2000 was 35.3. In 2007, it was 36.7.
My point of this long string of information is that the majority of people in the United States are not in their twenties. The teens have no ability to vote (aside from eighteen and nineteen year olds) and are not old enough to hold any office. People in their twenties are not old enough to hold most major offices, and our numbers are such that we could be (and often are) outvoted. If the country is going down the crapper, and if we are going to point out one age group to blame, then I highly doubt it's the twenties and teens; "bitching," "moaning," "questioning fucking everything," and listening to shitty music doesn't take a country down the crapper, and especially not when those you blame aren't even in positions of power to have any influence on the country's actual workings.
The current failings can be placed at the feet of those who grew up during the free love, bead wearing, flower power hippie era.
Most of the people serving in the administration today are of that era. They dug the Woodstock and fought the power. They watched Laugh-In for political education and worshiped at the altar of Timothy Leary, Janis Joplin, Hendrix and the rest of the stoners. They rejected the sacrifice and honor their parents displayed during WWII and embraced John Lennon's (failed) give peace a chance mantra. Because their parents had sacrificed so much, this era came to believe it was owed something -- and owed by everyone. Maybe the parents fostered that because they didn't want their kids to suffer the way they had, who knows?
Obama is at the tail end of that generation. He's 48 or 49 and was among the last to skip stupidly along in those footsteps.
The next generation, the next group to take control -- people who are between 30 and 44 now -- are much more conservative (as a whole) than the people now in power. In the next ten to twenty years you'll hopefully see a gradual shift back toward fiscal and societal conservatism (via government) before their spoiled brat children come along and shit the bed again.
Just hope the flower power fucks who traded their tie dyed shirts and birkenstocks for suits won't have fucked things up beyond repair when the pendulum swings back.
-
Very interesting theory that the country is going down the crapper because of teens and people in their twenties. In 2000, the largest 5-year age group was 35-to-39 year olds with 22.7 million people, representing
8.1 percent of the total population. The second largest 5-year age group was 40-to-44 year olds with 22.4 million people, representing 8.0 percent of the population. Of the 5-year age groups, 50-to-54 year olds experienced the largest percentage growth in population over the past decade, 55 percent. The second
fastest-growing group was the age group 45 to 49, which experienced a 45-percent increase. The median age in 2000 was 35.3. In 2007, it was 36.7.
My point of this long string of information is that the majority of people in the United States are not in their twenties. The teens have no ability to vote (aside from eighteen and nineteen year olds) and are not old enough to hold any office. People in their twenties are not old enough to hold most major offices, and our numbers are such that we could be (and often are) outvoted. If the country is going down the crapper, and if we are going to point out one age group to blame, then I highly doubt it's the twenties and teens; "bitching," "moaning," "questioning phuking everything," and listening to poopty music doesn't take a country down the crapper, and especially not when those you blame aren't even in positions of power to have any influence on the country's actual workings.
They certainly weren't outvoted in the last presidential election. Thanks for playing a large part in giving us B. Hussein Obama, The ONE.
...
Under- 30's
66% of under-30's showed their support for Obama - far higher than in any previous election - compared to 31% for McCain.
A staggering 54% of young white voters also went for Obama.
Overall, this also helped Obama secure a high number of first time voters; 71% of whom voted Democrat.
McCain only managed to secure 29% of first-time voters, compared to 53% for John Kerry in 2004.
Obama's youth - at 47 he is one of the youngest ever presidents - appealed to and energised many of those who were voting for the first time.
...
Full article with more interesting demographics: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm)
-
They certainly weren't outvoted in the last presidential election. Thanks for playing a large part in giving us B. Hussein Obama, The ONE.
Full article with more interesting demographics: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm)
This actually validates my point. The under 30 generation is stupid just like the ones in their 50s today. Ideologically similar and shallow because they know nothing about sacrifice.
For the record, neither does our generation really, but we at least understand the concept.
-
This actually validates my point. The under 30 generation is stupid just like the ones in their 50s today. Ideologically similar and shallow because they know nothing about sacrifice.
For the record, neither does our generation really, but we at least understand the concept.
Oddly enough, you are in the only generation that "gets it", your generation. Funny how that works.
-
Oddly enough, you are in the only generation that "gets it", your generation. Funny how that works.
So you disagree that the people who fought WWII and built this country into a world power had the right ideas?
Because the fucks in power now would never have pulled that off. You'd be speaking German or Japanese.
Do you think the current administration, both Republican and Democrat (since they sprung from the same shallow well) "get it"? Is reckless spending and a push for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity "getting it"? How has having a coke and a smile worked out in the Middle East?
No generation has an exclusive on "getting it" but it's about to be our turn as soon as some of these ex hippies die out -- and we'll see whether our more conservative ways of thinking are better or worse.
Like with almost everything else, I already know that answer to that one. And as with most everything else I choose to analyze -- I'll be right.
-
So you disagree that the people who fought WWII and built this country into a world power had the right ideas?
Because the phuks in power now would never have pulled that off. You'd be speaking German or Japanese.
Do you think the current administration, both Republican and Democrat (since they sprung from the same shallow well) "get it"? Is reckless spending and a push for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity "getting it"? How has having a coke and a smile worked out in the Middle East?
No generation has an exclusive on "getting it" but it's about to be our turn as soon as some of these ex hippies die out -- and we'll see whether our more conservative ways of thinking are better or worse.
Like with almost everything else, I already know that answer to that one. And as with most everything else I choose to analyze -- I'll be right.
Maybe what we need are some hard times to teach all of us to "man-up" (to borrow a recent phrase from Tiger Wench) instead of becoming cowering, 'indie music' listening, gay friendly, socially conscience, enviro-babblist, 'feeling' instead of 'thinking', submissive beta males. The ONE and his Progressive market and social engineering could be a blessing in disguise.
-
Maybe what we need are some hard times to teach all of us to "man-up" (to borrow a recent phrase from Tiger Wench) instead of becoming cowering, 'indie music' listening, gay friendly, socially conscience, enviro-babblist, 'feeling' instead of 'thinking', submissive beta males. The ONE and his social engineering could be a blessing in disguise.
Eureka! We've discovered the heart of our economic troubles!
Fags, Indie Music, and human kindness!
How could I have been so blind, when it was right there in front of me all this time!
-
So you disagree that the people who fought WWII and built this country into a world power had the right ideas?
Because the fucks in power now would never have pulled that off. You'd be speaking German or Japanese.
Do you think the current administration, both Republican and Democrat (since they sprung from the same shallow well) "get it"? Is reckless spending and a push for equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity "getting it"? How has having a coke and a smile worked out in the Middle East?
No generation has an exclusive on "getting it" but it's about to be our turn as soon as some of these ex hippies die out -- and we'll see whether our more conservative ways of thinking are better or worse.
Like with almost everything else, I already know that answer to that one. And as with most everything else I choose to analyze -- I'll be right.
You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation. In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.
-
Eureka! We've discovered the heart of our economic troubles!
Fags, Indie Music, and human kindness!
How could I have been so blind, when it was right there in front of me all this time!
You missed his point....and I'm pretty sure you did it on purpose. You may not like his tone or his specific examples, but you get the point....I'm pretty sure anyway.
-
Like with almost everything else, I already know that answer to that one. And as with most everything else I choose to analyze -- I'll be right.
You are all hat, no cattle.
-
They certainly weren't outvoted in the last presidential election. Thanks for playing a large part in giving us B. Hussein Obama, The ONE.
Full article with more interesting demographics: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html#ixzz0foAXDGMm)
So...we should listen to older generations. We should follow older generations. We should support older generations.
Isn't Obama part of an older generation?
You act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds into office and we now run the country. Last time I checked, everyone that was elected was not of our generation. It is their leadership, not ours, that has changed the country's course. We put our voting power in support of older generations, and then you complain when we do so even though that's what you want us to do.
And let's get some numbers straight while we're at it. Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18–29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3% and 54.5%. 66% of those, according to your article's numbers, voted for Obama. 66% of 24 million is 15.84 million. 122,394,724 is the total number of voters in 2008. 15.84 million is approximately 13% of the total 122,294,724 voters. 13% doesn't win an election by itself; older generations played a major part as well.
Oh, and while we're blaming generations of voters, 67% of voters 65 and older voted for Bush in 2004. Not the hippie generation, but the generation that you probably view as pioneers who stuck through the hard times and made it through, giving birth to those ungrateful, stupid brat hippies who assisted in moronic things such as the Civil Rights movement. Bush only had a 38% approval rating shortly before the 2004 election (in October) from 18-29 year olds. Overall? 51%. 53% of voters in 2004 who were 30-44 voted for Bush. 51% of voters who were 45-59 also voted for Bush. Great job there.
-
You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation. In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.
I like to think that none of us would. I used to be more optimistic about us as Americans but with The ONE and his orcs in charge I think he's more interested in apologizing for America than anything else.
-
Maybe what we need are some hard times to teach all of us to "man-up" (to borrow a recent phrase from Tiger Wench) instead of becoming cowering, 'indie music' listening, gay friendly, socially conscience, enviro-babblist, 'feeling' instead of 'thinking', submissive beta males. The ONE and his Progressive market and social engineering could be a blessing in disguise.
I think you are going to get your wish.
As for the rest of this nonsense, DC has become too power hungry. Doesn't matter which generation is in there. They are all scumbags to a certain extent. They will only change when outside forces make them change, for their own good. They don't care about the average American. If you believe they do, you are naive. It's all about remaining in power. It was the same for the WWII folks.
Sometimes they make the right choices, sometimes they make the wrong changes. Nothing to do with political viewpoint. Just varying degrees of smarts and luck.
-
You are all hat, no cattle.
I've got a really large herd. Massive.
-
You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation. In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.
Not judging. Merely observing the general attitude.
I don't know that my generation would be able to take that burden and thrive the way my grandparents did. When you think of just how many of them left and didn't come back -- and went willingly knowing what they were going to face -- I just don't know.
I'd like to think we would, but what I see now makes me question it. Would I have left my new wife and baby when I was 24 to go overseas and endure what they did? Would I pile off the boat at Normandy with the bullets flying everywhere, knowing that my chances of survival were slim? I'd like to think so, but I just don't know.
I know that most of the people in the current administration (and I don't mean Obama, necessarily I'm talking about all of Washington) probably would not have. Many of them did not and looked for any way possible to avoid facing that kind of future during Vietnam. Funny how the vets from that war are ostracized as loonies while many of the people who protested their sacrifice now serve in Washington.
-
You are judging people that have not been presented the same situation as the WWII generation. In the same circumstances I do not think that my generation would fail.
You may be right, and it's true, we haven't been able to see how certain generations would handle the 1940s.
But I don't know if the majority of those in power today would pull it off. The ones in power, and a large portion under 35ish, are the main ones that rant and rave about civilian casualties as we're fighting Taliban in southern Afghanistan. Yes, I know civilian casualties are not good, but they are a byproduct of war...always have been, and are a much smaller % today than in past wars.
I don't know that they would step up and just do what had to be done. The reason I say this is because they seem to be so sidetracked with perceived political correctness. It governs every decision they make. It clouds clear thinking on bigger issues, because they make the bigger issues have to fall under less important "politically correct" guidelines and criteria. They try too hard to fight too nice...or more often than not, they try too hard to not fight at all.
-
Not judging. Merely observing the general attitude.
I don't know that my generation would be able to take that burden and thrive the way my grandparents did. When you think of just how many of them left and didn't come back -- and went willingly knowing what they were going to face -- I just don't know.
I'd like to think we would, but what I see now makes me question it. Would I have left my new wife and baby when I was 24 to go overseas and endure what they did? Would I pile off the boat at Normandy with the bullets flying everywhere, knowing that my chances of survival were slim? I'd like to think so, but I just don't know.
I know that most of the people in the current administration (and I don't mean Obama, necessarily I'm talking about all of Washington) probably would not have. Many of them did not and looked for any way possible to avoid facing that kind of future during Vietnam. Funny how the vets from that war are ostracized as loonies while many of the people who protested their sacrifice now serve in Washington.
That's a myth. A large portion of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war. Soldiers were drafted (not all, of course) and went.
As far as Normandy, the grunts in the landing boats didn't know what was coming.
We all would have piled off that boat. Suicide not to. Some of us would have heavier underwear than others.
-
I think you are going to get your wish.
As for the rest of this nonsense, DC has become too power hungry. Doesn't matter which generation is in there. They are all scumbags to a certain extent. They will only change when outside forces make them change, for their own good. They don't care about the average American. If you believe they do, you are naive. It's all about remaining in power. It was the same for the WWII folks.
Sometimes they make the right choices, sometimes they make the wrong changes. Nothing to do with political viewpoint. Just varying degrees of smarts and luck.
Or generation either...good points all LT.
So...we should listen to older generations. We should follow older generations. We should support older generations.
Isn't Obama part of an older generation?
You act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds into office and we now run the country. Last time I checked, everyone that was elected was not of our generation. It is their leadership, not ours, that has changed the country's course. We put our voting power in support of older generations, and then you complain when we do so even though that's what you want us to do.
And let's get some numbers straight while we're at it. Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18–29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3% and 54.5%. 66% of those, according to your article's numbers, voted for Obama. 66% of 24 million is 15.84 million. 122,394,724 is the total number of voters in 2008. 15.84 million is approximately 13% of the total 122,294,724 voters. 13% doesn't win an election by itself; older generations played a major part as well.
Oh, and while we're blaming generations of voters, 67% of voters 65 and older voted for Bush in 2004. Not the hippie generation, but the generation that you probably view as pioneers who stuck through the hard times and made it through, giving birth to those ungrateful, stupid brat hippies who assisted in moronic things such as the Civil Rights movement. Bush only had a 38% approval rating shortly before the 2004 election (in October) from 18-29 year olds. Overall? 51%. 53% of voters in 2004 who were 30-44 voted for Bush. 51% of voters who were 45-59 also voted for Bush. Great job there.
Not my point at all Vandy Vol, with all due respect. Twenty-somethings, young white males, and first time voters were not the only reason we have The ONE but they were undeniably a large part of it. You can put words in my mouth and attack me for participating in electing Bush all you want but that is the truth about The ONE.
I don't care how old or young this particular administration is, they and their socialist, Keynesian, Progressive agenda are wrong for this country and so are the rest of the socialist Democrats that were elected in 2006 and 2008. AND that's not to imply that the Republicans have all the answers either by the way; especially the neo-Cons who I've been mightily critical of on this board; it is undeniable too that Bush set us on the bailout course before he left office.
Anyway, like LT wrote it's all about power and control for these clowns; but that's beside the point of this thread too which is why a radio station changed it's format. It happens all the time.
Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk! :poke:
-
BTW - I love the offseason!! :vn:
When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".
You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.
Yes - THAT generation is the one who put these loons in power. And those loons who are all middle aged now AWK? As Kaos said - they were THAT generation in the 60's/70's. Makes absolute perfect sense.
-
Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk! :poke:
-
BTW - I love the offseason!! :vn:
When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".
You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.
Yes - THAT generation is the one who put these loons in power. And those loons who are all middle aged now AWK? As Kaos said - they were THAT generation in the 60's/70's. Makes absolute perfect sense.
Penn & Teller's Bullshit Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.
Watch it.
-
Penn & Teller's Bullpoop Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.
Watch it.
I will take the good old days over the new bad days anytime. :thumsup:
Isnt the offseason great? :clap:
-
Not my point at all Vandy Vol, with all due respect. Twenty-somethings, young white males, and first time voters were not the only reason we have The ONE but they were undeniably a large part of it. You can put words in my mouth and attack me for participating in electing Bush all you want but that is the truth about The ONE.
I never put words in your mouth; I simply provided the numbers to disprove your point, which was:
They certainly weren't outvoted in the last presidential election.
My numbers show that young voters (18-29) were only 13% of the voting population that voted for Obama. 53% of the voting population voted for Obama. Thus, 40% of the voting population who voted for Obama were not of our generation. 40% > 13%, so yes, we were outvoted; the larger population of the older generations often leads us to being outvoted in numbers. We played a part, yes. And if you want to argue that 13% was a large part, then yes, we played a large part. However, the 40% of votes from older generations played an even larger part.
I don't care how old or young this particular administration is, they and their socialist, Keynesian, Progressive agenda are wrong for this country and so are the rest of the socialist Democrats that were elected in 2006 and 2008.
Kenya is a representative democratic republic. That doesn't really fit with the adjectives "progressive" (speaking of the theoretical/traditional definition of progressivism) and "socialist."
Lastly, get the fuck off of my lawn you ageist punk! :poke:
I only wanted to lay in the sun and listen to my indie music. :moon:
-
America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.
-
America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.
I know this is sarcasm, but it's fascism. Dammit Jeff.
-
America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.
Was about to ask if you were being seriously sarcastic. :)
The "Hoover caused the GD because of his damn laisse fair capitalistic policies" Myth is one of the greatest tales of all time. And its sad that its being taught in schools....FDR did much to cause it and purposely prolong it.
-
Kenya is a representative democratic republic. That doesn't really fit with the adjectives "progressive" (speaking of the theoretical/traditional definition of progressivism) and "socialist."
Had to stop you there.
Keynesian, not Kenyan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)
-
Penn & Teller's Bullshit Season 6, Episode 10: The Good Ol' Days.
Watch it.
Your core of understanding comes from South Park, John Stewart, Family Guy and Penn & Teller.
You have no idea how much this confirms and explains.
Serious question, no flame: Have you ever had a real job? Have you ever had to make your own way or support others on what you were able to earn? Not condemning if you haven't. But your answer could go to perception and mindset.
-
America "thrived" after WWII because it was the only industrialized country that hadn't been destroyed. Your grandparents get the credit for reallly just being lucky. If anything, the great depression showed how bad capitalism is and how great fasism was.
I sincerely hope sarcasm was your intent. Otherwise the ignorant irony here is pungent.
-
Had to stop you there.
Keynesian, not Kenyan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)
Yes - John Maynard Keynes, a seriously fucked up in the head economist from England.
Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises adhere the best to the way our Constitution is written. This is why I like Ron Paul.
-
When I said Late Teens/20's, I meant the ideology of that group of people as a whole. That same ideology that is in DC now. The European style of socialism. These are the same people, this demographic group, that elected these idiots in DC. The 18-27 demographic leans very progressive and voted so in 2008. This is what I mean by "this generation is taking the country down the crapper".
I'm going to have to point you to my responses to Tarheel. In summation, the 18-29 year old voters only made up 13% of Obama's votes; the other 40% came from older generations. Yes, our generation played a part, but we were hardly the reason for Obama's election.
You cannot say with truth that this country was not better off from 1800-1960 than it has been from 1961-NOW. Look at the numbers, look at the culture, crime rates, unemployment, GDP by %, morale (not morals - not gonna get into that), quality of life, and on and on....
Yes, quality of life has greatly decreased, which is why the average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony, and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood. Meanwhile, nowadays, the average lifespan is 74 years. Quality of life has clearly taken a sharp downturn over the years.
During the crash of 1893, unemployment was around 20%. There were no food stamps, no welfare and no medical assistance. You were on your own, left with the kindness of strangers. Modern American industry started around 1830. Over these past 180 years, we have had one difficulty followed by good times, then another rough patch followed by another smooth patch, so on and so on. Just as with most things, various measurements of our success are going to be cyclical.
As far as crime rates, that has been decreasing, at least in regard to violent crimes. The FBI only kept up with data since 1960, so there's no real way to compare the crime rates of the 1800s to now. You also have to consider that technology has allowed us to catch and convict more criminals, whereas in the 1800s many crimes went unpunished due to an inability to identify the culprit.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif)
The only reason the ONE big economic downturn that happened between 1800-1960, even HAPPENED was due to progressive policy (raising interest rates, deflation of the currency, explicit margin trading) and unwarranted and purposeful speculation by NY junk traders (one of whom was - yep FDR - before he was president). High Tarrifs and increased taxes actually discouraged investment in the US prolonging the Great Depression a good 5-7 years. This is much of the same depression economic policy Baracky Hussein is using now - and the same thing will happen.
Progressivism in the United States came about during the 1880s to 1920s. There was even a Progressive Party in 1912 that was founded by Theodore Roosevelt. Ever heard of the roaring 20s? We successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, much of this due to the progressive leaders at the time.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg)
Yes, the Great Depression occurred shortly after in 1929, but even economic scholars can't agree on the cause. Those who believe in a large role for the state in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem.
Regardless, much of our success and failure is always going to be cyclical.
-
Had to stop you there.
Keynesian, not Kenyan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)
I just now noticed that; transposed the Y and N, and was wondering why he was referring to anything Kenyan as "Kenyesian."
-
VV, just wanted to point out one thing about how you were comparing the under 30 people voting for Bush in 2004. It may have been 53% of the people that age that happened to vote in 2004, but in 2008, 64% of the 18-24 year olds, and 43% of 18-29 were first time voters. Meaning, this wasn't the same group of people just changing their minds from 2004 to 2008. This was largely a new group that voted for Obama that had not voted at all previously. A new group with a different philosophy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I was looking around at some voting numbers....since it had become fashionable in some of our posts...and I found something really interesting....something that doesn't make too much sense to me, but maybe someone here can help me get it.
The following is for young voters, 18-29.
Of whites, only 29% of the voters consider themselves "liberal", yet 54% of them voted for Obama.
Of African Americans, only 33% consider themselves "liberal", yet 95% voted for Obama.
Of Hispanics, 41% consider themselves "liberal", yet 76% of them voted for Obama.
Overall, 32% of these voters consider themselves "liberal", and 45% consider themselves a Democrat, yet 68% voted for Obama.
I guess my two inclinations are that A. it was a huge "backlash" vote against the "old white guy" status-quo in Washington, and B. Obama was elected more on his celebrity status than anything else.
Ideas?
-
VV, just wanted to point out one thing about how you were comparing the under 30 people voting for Bush in 2004. It may have been 53% of the people that age that happened to vote in 2004, but in 2008, 64% of the 18-24 year olds, and 43% of 18-29 were first time voters. Meaning, this wasn't the same group of people just changing their minds from 2004 to 2008. This was largely a new group that voted for Obama that had not voted at all previously. A new group with a different philosophy.
This assumes that all of the new, young voters were coming out to vote for Obama. Many of those were likely coming out to oppose Obama. Now, I'm not saying that the majority of them was. However, regardless of how many new voters there were in support of Obama, we were still outvoted. Our generation only made up 13% of the vote for Obama; that was my point. New voters or not, the older generations showed that they consistently have the majority of the voting power and play the largest part in deciding who is elected, as is evidenced by their votes making up 40% of Obama's votes.
I guess my two inclinations are that A. it was a huge "backlash" vote against the "old white guy" status-quo in Washington, and B. Obama was elected more on his celebrity status than anything else.
Ideas?
The backlash theory is probably correct. Additionally, I'd like to see polls that used the terms Democrat and Republican. It may sound trivial, but people tend to identify themselves with a party easier than they do "liberal" or "conservative." Identifying yourself with a party identifies yourself with people in that party, many of whom have both liberal and conservative ideas. Saying you are liberal, however, gives the impression that you have only liberal ideas; this may be why people were hesitant to label themselves as such, but would still label themselves as a Democrat.
-
I'm going to have to point you to my responses to Tarheel. In summation, the 18-29 year old voters only made up 13% of Obama's votes; the other 40% came from older generations. Yes, our generation played a part, but we were hardly the reason for Obama's election.
Yes, quality of life has greatly decreased, which is why the average life expectancy in Colonial America was under 25 years in the Virginia colony, and in New England about 40% of children failed to reach adulthood. Meanwhile, nowadays, the average lifespan is 74 years. Quality of life has clearly taken a sharp downturn over the years.
During the crash of 1893, unemployment was around 20%. There were no food stamps, no welfare and no medical assistance. You were on your own, left with the kindness of strangers. Modern American industry started around 1830. Over these past 180 years, we have had one difficulty followed by good times, then another rough patch followed by another smooth patch, so on and so on. Just as with most things, various measurements of our success are going to be cyclical.
As far as crime rates, that has been decreasing, at least in regard to violent crimes. The FBI only kept up with data since 1960, so there's no real way to compare the crime rates of the 1800s to now. You also have to consider that technology has allowed us to catch and convict more criminals, whereas in the 1800s many crimes went unpunished due to an inability to identify the culprit.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif)
Progressivism in the United States came about during the 1880s to 1920s. There was even a Progressive Party in 1912 that was founded by Theodore Roosevelt. Ever heard of the roaring 20s? We successfully transitioned from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy, much of this due to the progressive leaders at the time.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg)
Yes, the Great Depression occurred shortly after in 1929, but even economic scholars can't agree on the cause. Those who believe in a large role for the state in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem.
Regardless, much of our success and failure is always going to be cyclical.
I never said they were the majority of voters. They simply filled in the gap and made the difference in getting that ideology in the White House. How many 18-29 voters turned out in 2008 as compared to 2000 and 2004? BTW - The 18-29 demographic voted for Obama by a margin of 63-33.
Quality of Life not equal to length of life. Quality meaning more asthetically pleasing and functional. You may not have been here as long, but it was "better". Length of life has gone up for other reasons - again, nothing to do with liberal policies.
LMAO @ the Roaring 20's economics being caused by 'liberal policies'. While there was social change in the 20's (such as dance crazes, prohibition), the economic boom is typical of post war industrial production much like the Civil War and WWII.
Transportation is almost certainly the reason for MOST of the boom of the 20's. Between Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford, transportation was revolutionized in the 20's. There was also the electric grid which employed a ton of people, mass production of goods, mass communication and the oil industry (an increased demand from the auto industry booming). Don't confuse social changes and economic changes when speaking of the 20's. 2 different things and totally unrelated.
Warren G Harding even ran on an economic platform of 'normalcy' - and supply-side economics. When Harding took office in 1921, the national economy was in the depths of a 'depression' with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years.
As for the GD, buying on margin (i.e. - overextending credit in today's world) and purposeful speculating by a few greedy idiots were the causes. Its not a debate. Overextending credit to people who cannot handle is a progressive policy. See 2008 Housing Crisis/Subprime Lending Crisis. This is exactly what happened towards the end of the roaring 20's thus creating a bubble. Speculators do what they do, a panic sets in, people start selling short. And guess what happens when everyone starts selling at once, with most of their money tied up in margin? Bad things man...bad things......pop goes the Bubble. :bc:
-
Serious question, no flame: Have you ever had a real job? Have you ever had to make your own way or support others on what you were able to earn? Not condemning if you haven't. But your answer could go to perception and mindset.
Really? Are you so self-absorbed that you miss the information posted by others?
Remember the fiasco where a car ran through Chad's house? The house he had just purchased. With money from his real job.
-
Really? Are you so self-absorbed that you miss the information posted by others?
Remember the fiasco where a car ran through Chad's house? The house he had just purchased. With money from his real job.
I got this one. Yes.
-
This assumes that all of the new, young voters were coming out to vote for Obama. Many of those were likely coming out to oppose Obama. Now, I'm not saying that the majority of them was. However, regardless of how many new voters there were in support of Obama, we were still outvoted. Our generation only made up 13% of the vote for Obama; that was my point. New voters or not, the older generations showed that they consistently have the majority of the voting power and play the largest part in deciding who is elected, as is evidenced by their votes making up 40% of Obama's votes.
All I know is this...
(http://i.imgur.com/Zh0yK.jpg)
The backlash theory is probably correct. Additionally, I'd like to see polls that used the terms Democrat and Republican. It may sound trivial, but people tend to identify themselves with a party easier than they do "liberal" or "conservative." Identifying yourself with a party identifies yourself with people in that party, many of whom have both liberal and conservative ideas. Saying you are liberal, however, gives the impression that you have only liberal ideas; this may be why people were hesitant to label themselves as such, but would still label themselves as a Democrat.
[/quote]
Here are the same numbers but with those who called themselves a Democrat.
Of whites, only 33% of the voters consider themselves a Democrat, yet 54% of them voted for Obama.
Of African Americans, only 77% consider themselves a Democrat, yet 95% voted for Obama.
Of Hispanics, 53% consider themselves a Democrat, yet 76% of them voted for Obama.
Overall, 45% consider themselves a Democrat, yet 68% voted for Obama.
See, to me, this is actually less telling than the "liberal" numbers. Obama is not merely a Democrat by any stretch. There is a reason the "blue dog" democrats came to be. It's because there is almost no semblance of the "moderate democrat" left in Democratic leadership. Obama is liberal. As liberal as they come.
This is why it's so interesting to me that so many that do not consider themselves liberal (or even Democrat) voted for one of the most liberal Democrats to ever run for office. And not just Obama, but the Democratic leadership in general. How are they in leadership when so few American's actually seem to agree with them philosophically?
Which brings me back to the A and B I listed. Those are the two things I can think of. It reminds me of a few good lines in that movie The American President...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsW_P9KQtuU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsW_P9KQtuU#ws)
-
I never said they were the majority of voters. They simply filled in the gap and made the difference in getting that ideology in the White House. How many 18-29 voters turned out in 2008 as compared to 2000 and 2004? BTW - The 18-29 demographic voted for Obama by a margin of 63-33.
Quality of Life not equal to length of life. Quality meaning more asthetically pleasing and functional. You may not have been here as long, but it was "better". Length of life has gone up for other reasons - again, nothing to do with liberal policies.
LMAO @ the Roaring 20's economics being caused by 'liberal policies'. While there was social change in the 20's (such as dance crazes, prohibition), the economic boom is typical of post war industrial production much like the Civil War and WWII.
Transportation is almost certainly the reason for MOST of the boom of the 20's. Between Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford, transportation was revolutionized in the 20's. There was also the electric grid which employed a ton of people, mass production of goods, mass communication and the oil industry (an increased demand from the auto industry booming). Don't confuse social changes and economic changes when speaking of the 20's. 2 different things and totally unrelated.
Warren G Harding even ran on an economic platform of 'normalcy' - and supply-side economics. When Harding took office in 1921, the national economy was in the depths of a 'depression' with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. Harding proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding didn't live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years.
As for the GD, buying on margin (i.e. - overextending credit in today's world) and purposeful speculating by a few greedy idiots were the causes. Its not a debate. Overextending credit to people who cannot handle is a progressive policy. See 2008 Housing Crisis/Subprime Lending Crisis. This is exactly what happened towards the end of the roaring 20's thus creating a bubble. Speculators do what they do, a panic sets in, people start selling short. And guess what happens when everyone starts selling at once, with most of their money tied up in margin? Bad things man...bad things......pop goes the Bubble. :bc:
You know it's the off season when Warren G Harding makes an appearance.
Good post GH.
-
Really? Are you so self-absorbed that you miss the information posted by others?
Remember the fiasco where a car ran through Chad's house? The house he had just purchased. With money from his real job.
He also knows that that I work in software engineering.
I didn't even see this statement tucked away in the last post on the page.
Ridiculous.
Perhaps you should watch some of these shows.
They don't form my beliefs, but they do demonstrate them in a much more humorous and anecdotal way than I am able to on a message board as I waste away my work day at my real job.
-
He also knows that that I work in software engineering.
I didn't even see this statement tucked away in the last post on the page.
Ridiculous.
Perhaps you should watch some of these shows.
They don't form my beliefs, but they do demonstrate them in a much more humorous and anecdotal way than I am able to on a message board as I waste away my work day at my real job.
Its all good Chad. :bc:
Like JAD said, you know its the offseason when Warren G Harding makes an appearance in the same thread as indie music. I bet wreckingball had no idea this thread would get to level. LOL
Just remember - on the Football side of the board, I think most of us are on the same page. :bar:
-
Really? Are you so self-absorbed that you miss the information posted by others?
Remember the fiasco where a car ran through Chad's house? The house he had just purchased. With money from his real job.
I remember somebody hit a deer. I don't remember anything about somebody crashing a house.
But I don't read everything posted here.
And let's be honest. I get the names of my kids mixed up sometimes. I don't really remember which anecdote applies to whom most of the time.
-
He also knows that that I work in software engineering.
They don't form my beliefs, but they do demonstrate them in a much more humorous and anecdotal way than I am able to on a message board as I waste away my work day at my real job.
I actually had forgotten that.
Fucking whippersnappers, expecting me to remember shit all the time.
-
I remember somebody hit a deer. I don't remember anything about somebody crashing a house.
But I don't read everything posted here.
And let's be honest. I get the names of my kids mixed up sometimes. I don't really remember which anecdote applies to whom most of the time.
You even posted in the thread. Not surprisingly, your post was a story only tangentially related to Chad's thread (see: narcissism).
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321)
-
You even posted in the thread. Not surprisingly, your post was a story only tangentially related to Chad's thread (see: narcissism).
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321)
:pics:
Brian and his cheap-assed server maintenance...
-
You even posted in the thread. Not surprisingly, your post was a story only tangentially related to Chad's thread (see: narcissism).
http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=1948.msg23321#msg23321)
You honestly expect me to remember some random thread from before Chizik was hired? Sorry, but I really don't care that much.
-
I never said they were the majority of voters. They simply filled in the gap and made the difference in getting that ideology in the White House.
You stated that "these people," meaning our generation of 18-29 year olds, are the ones who elected the current administration in D.C. Untrue. 13% is not enough to get him elected.
How many 18-29 voters turned out in 2008 as compared to 2000 and 2004? BTW - The 18-29 demographic voted for Obama by a margin of 63-33.
It was actually 66-33. Nonetheless, you're still assuming that all of the new voters voted for Obama. It's very possible that many of those new voters made up that 33%. Again, I'm not claiming that all or even a majority of the new voters opposed Obama; most of them probably did come out and vote to support him, but it's an assumption to state that the new voters all voted for Obama.
And, again, even if they did, only 13% of Obama's vote was made up of our generation (18-29). New voters or not, we did not "elect these idiots in D.C.," as you stated. We were a part of that vote, yes, but only 13% of it; the older generations were 40% of it. We may have come out in record numbers, but yet again as I've already stated, we were outvoted as we often are. If the older generations had as much sense as everyone claims, then Obama's 40% of votes wouldn't have come from them, and they could have changed the election and taken control away from us dumb whippersnappers. But instead, they voted with us, adding 40% to his votes.
Quality of Life not equal to length of life. Quality meaning more asthetically pleasing and functional. You may not have been here as long, but it was "better". Length of life has gone up for other reasons - again, nothing to do with liberal policies.
Aesthetics is subjective, so there is no use in arguing that, but functional? It's more functional to deliver messages by horse than by internet? More functional to drive to Washington state than to fly? Your broad statements had nothing to do with liberal or conservative policies; you simply stated that our country had a better quality of life during the 1800s - 1950s as opposed to the 1960s to now. If you think our country is less functional than it was 200 years ago, then I'm not sure what else to say.
LMAO @ the Roaring 20's economics being caused by 'liberal policies'. While there was social change in the 20's (such as dance crazes, prohibition), the economic boom is typical of post war industrial production much like the Civil War and WWII.
Before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, the nation's economy was based around agricultural. The Industrial Revolution had occurred in Europe decades before, and was now sweeping into America. War does not automatically result in an economic boom upon its completion. The Vietnam War was responsible for a heavy strain on the financial resources of the U.S. economy, as most wars do. There was an imbalance in the industrial sector; factories which were manufacturing consumer goods had to shift their onus towards catering to the demands of the military.
Due to excessive military spending and diversion of funds overseas, the dollar weakened. There was no equivalent amount of funds coming into the country. The country cringed under the strain of household social spending and subsidies on one side and military expenditure on the other. The government earned dissatisfaction from the general public as the interest rates rose and inflationary trends ballooned. The affluent lifestyle of the 60s began to erode because of the economic paralysis.
Transportation is almost certainly the reason for MOST of the boom of the 20's. Between Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford, transportation was revolutionized in the 20's. There was also the electric grid which employed a ton of people, mass production of goods, mass communication and the oil industry (an increased demand from the auto industry booming). Don't confuse social changes and economic changes when speaking of the 20's. 2 different things and totally unrelated.
Certainly, but ignoring the political decisions that helped effectuate this change is also a mistake. The Fordney-McCumber Act (1922) and the Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) created the highest-ever schedule of tariffs for foreign-made goods. This was done in response to the modernization of America, which gave us the technology to trade with foreign countries. Such trade opened up the international market and threatened the marketability of our domestic goods, as is evidenced today. The very basic principal of progressivism is that it is a political movement that addresses ideas and issues stemming from the modernization of American society. These tariffs were essentially a progressive attempt to address the recent modernization of American society within the recently developed international trade scene.
As for the GD, buying on margin (i.e. - overextending credit in today's world) and purposeful speculating by a few greedy idiots were the causes. Its not a debate. Overextending credit to people who cannot handle is a progressive policy. See 2008 Housing Crisis/Subprime Lending Crisis. This is exactly what happened towards the end of the roaring 20's thus creating a bubble. Speculators do what they do, a panic sets in, people start selling short. And guess what happens when everyone starts selling at once, with most of their money tied up in margin? Bad things man...bad things......pop goes the Bubble. :bc:
I agree that overextending credit was not a great idea. I also agree that it was the major cause of the most recent economic crash. To call it a progressive move, however, isn't quite correct. Maybe our contemporary definition of "progressive" has become skewed, especially with the Obama administration, but historically in the United States political system progressivism is characterized as a need for efficiency in society by means of ridding waste and corruption. As society changes, or modernizes, the manner in which we can satisfy this goal changes. New obstacles arise, and new solutions are needed. That's why the root word is "progress;" things are dynamic, not static.
Cultural progressivism has often focused on equality and social reform. Maybe that is what leads you to believe that progressivism would extend credit to everyone equally, despite their inability to manage the debt. However, economic ideas within progressivism must be (and traditionally have been) separated from social ideas. Giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back does not embody progressivism, as it promotes waste. I would argue that capitalism, the free market, and greed are what led to creditors extending loans to those who wouldn't be able to pay.
-
All I know is this...
(http://i.imgur.com/Zh0yK.jpg)
Key phrase: Would have looked like if the election were decided by 18-29 year olds. As with all elections, everyone over the age of 18 is able to vote. And as the demographics show, 18-29 year olds don't make up the majority of voters. Nor did they make up the majority of votes for Obama in this election.
See, to me, this is actually less telling than the "liberal" numbers. Obama is not merely a Democrat by any stretch. There is a reason the "blue dog" democrats came to be. It's because there is almost no semblance of the "moderate democrat" left in Democratic leadership. Obama is liberal. As liberal as they come.
People are more than happy to boil it down to Democrat vs. Republican. That's why we have so many straight ticket voters. He was a Democrat, so Democrats voted for him, and he wasn't Bush, so many disenfranchised Republicans probably voted for him too. Which is why I think the backlash from Bush had a lot to do with it.
-
Sorry for the late reply Vandy Vol. I keep getting interrupted with work stuff. And this is written with the intent of being somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
I never put words in your mouth; I simply provided the numbers to disprove your point, which was:
...
Well, again, with respect Counselor, you are.
A. I did not write that "we should follow older generations." ("we" meaning "you" in a general sense, that is the younger generation). "You" in a specific sense made that jump.
B. You write that "I act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds". No, I don't. I act as if we (and I use that term generally again, Counselor, because "I" did not vote for The ONE and I don't know who "you" voted for; "we" refers to a plurality of the electorate) elected a bunch of candy-ass, apologetic, socialists with communistic tendencies.
C. I did not complain that "you" (again, generally) voted for someone in an older generation who, as it turns out, is a mistake; I complained because it seems to me with my limited resource of information that "most" of "your" (again, in a general sense, not "you" in particular) generation (and, by "generation", Counselor, I'm referring to the "under 30" age group that voted in the 2008 Presidential election) voted for The ONE as opposed to the "under 30" age group that voted for McCain or someone else.
...
My numbers show that young voters (18-29) were only 13% of the voting population that voted for Obama. 53% of the voting population voted for Obama. Thus, 40% of the voting population who voted for Obama were not of our generation. 40% > 13%, so yes, we were outvoted; the larger population of the older generations often leads us to being outvoted in numbers. We played a part, yes. And if you want to argue that 13% was a large part, then yes, we played a large part. However, the 40% of votes from older generations played an even larger part.
...
Seriously very interesting. I'd like to see your source for this statistical information (since some of your statistics are not listed in my source as far as I can determine) for two reasons (and, if I missed it in an earlier post I do apologize, Counselor):
A. For verification, in which case I would consider conceding your point (e.g. {or i.e.?} that more "older" people voted for The ONE than did people under 30) if I'm satisfied that my "old" brain can interpolate and cipher the same figures as your "young" one.
B. For future use, I was looking for a good source of statistical data on the 2008 election some time ago for my own edification and all that I could find was the article that I already sourced.
...
Kenya is a representative democratic republic. That doesn't really fit with the adjectives "progressive" (speaking of the theoretical/traditional definition of progressivism) and "socialist."
...
I was referring to the Keynesian Economics that the current administration worships; not Kenya the country, but I think you know this as I saw that someone else already corrected you.
...
I only wanted to lay in the sun and listen to my indie music. :moon:
And I only want to sit in my lawn chair, drink a Jack and coke, smoke my cigar, and listen to my talk radio stations.
-
I would argue that capitalism, the free market, and greed are what led to creditors extending loans to those who wouldn't be able to pay.
Greed doesn't help, but the fact is this problem was started in Washington, primarily by Barney Frank in the late 1990s. If you are a mortgage broker or mortgage banker, you aren't going to extend too loans that don't conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they won't be bought or guaranteed in the secondary mortgage market.
What Frank did was lower the requirements of what would be secured in the secondary market and backed by FM and FM. He also then required lenders to extend a certain amount to people who qualified under these new "loose" (read, "idiotic") guidelines.
So, lenders, greedy as they are, didn't come up with the idea of handing out money to people that wouldn't pay it back. Washington did. Bush gets the blame, but as is often the case with these things, it was a congressional problem, not a presidential problem, and it started nearly two years before he even got into office (similar to how the last two years of the Bush administration were also run by a Democratic congress. Couple that with a not-so-conservative Bush, and really the last two years of Bush were not so different from the first year of Obama when it comes to spending, Obama has just taken it to a even more irresponsible level....and of course Bush gets the blame, not the Democratic congress).
I will say Bush didn't do anything to stop it. Sometime in 2002, in an effort to reach out to minorities, he noted that his goal was to make sure some 2 million minorities owned their own homes in the next few years. So he, or his administration, didn't open their eyes to what was inevitably going to happen. So they are partially to blame as well.
Anyway, in the end, greed perpetuated the problem perhaps, as builders and lenders were getting fat and happy. But it was allowed to take place, and the guidelines were laid out by Washington. To me, the blame falls on them. You can't stop greed, but you can set up guidelines that don't fan the flames and encourage it.
-
And I only want to sit in my lawn chair, drink a Jack and coke, smoke my cigar, and listen to my talk radio stations.
As long as you stick to Jack & Coke and not a high gravity beer, or one brewed locally, you're cool.
-
Greed doesn't help, but the fact is this problem was started in Washington, primarily by Barney Frank in the late 1990s. If you are a mortgage broker or mortgage banker, you aren't going to extend too loans that don't conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they won't be bought or guaranteed in the secondary mortgage market.
What Frank did was lower the requirements of what would be secured in the secondary market and backed by FM and FM. He also then required lenders to extend a certain amount to people who qualified under these new "loose" (read, "idiotic") guidelines.
So, lenders, greedy as they are, didn't come up with the idea of handing out money to people that wouldn't pay it back. Washington did. Bush gets the blame, but as is often the case with these things, it was a congressional problem, not a presidential problem, and it started nearly two years before he even got into office (similar to how the last two years of the Bush administration were also run by a Democratic congress. Couple that with a not-so-conservative Bush, and really the last two years of Bush were not so different from the first year of Obama when it comes to spending, Obama has just taken it to a even more irresponsible level....and of course Bush gets the blame, not the Democratic congress).
I will say Bush didn't do anything to stop it. Sometime in 2002, in an effort to reach out to minorities, he noted that his goal was to make sure some 2 million minorities owned their own homes in the next few years. So he, or his administration, didn't open their eyes to what was inevitably going to happen. So they are partially to blame as well.
Anyway, in the end, greed perpetuated the problem perhaps, as builders and lenders were getting fat and happy. But it was allowed to take place, and the guidelines were laid out by Washington. To me, the blame falls on them. You can't stop greed, but you can set up guidelines that don't fan the flames and encourage it.
Winner.
-
You stated that "these people," meaning our generation of 18-29 year olds, are the ones who elected the current administration in D.C. Untrue. 13% is not enough to get him elected.
It was actually 66-33. Nonetheless, you're still assuming that all of the new voters voted for Obama. It's very possible that many of those new voters made up that 33%. Again, I'm not claiming that all or even a majority of the new voters opposed Obama; most of them probably did come out and vote to support him, but it's an assumption to state that the new voters all voted for Obama.
And, again, even if they did, only 13% of Obama's vote was made up of our generation (18-29). New voters or not, we did not "elect these idiots in D.C.," as you stated. We were a part of that vote, yes, but only 13% of it; the older generations were 40% of it. We may have come out in record numbers, but yet again as I've already stated, we were outvoted as we often are. If the older generations had as much sense as everyone claims, then Obama's 40% of votes wouldn't have come from them, and they could have changed the election and taken control away from us dumb whippersnappers. But instead, they voted with us, adding 40% to his votes.
Aesthetics is subjective, so there is no use in arguing that, but functional? It's more functional to deliver messages by horse than by internet? More functional to drive to Washington state than to fly? Your broad statements had nothing to do with liberal or conservative policies; you simply stated that our country had a better quality of life during the 1800s - 1950s as opposed to the 1960s to now. If you think our country is less functional than it was 200 years ago, then I'm not sure what else to say.
Before, during, and immediately after the Civil War, the nation's economy was based around agricultural. The Industrial Revolution had occurred in Europe decades before, and was now sweeping into America. War does not automatically result in an economic boom upon its completion. The Vietnam War was responsible for a heavy strain on the financial resources of the U.S. economy, as most wars do. There was an imbalance in the industrial sector; factories which were manufacturing consumer goods had to shift their onus towards catering to the demands of the military.
Due to excessive military spending and diversion of funds overseas, the dollar weakened. There was no equivalent amount of funds coming into the country. The country cringed under the strain of household social spending and subsidies on one side and military expenditure on the other. The government earned dissatisfaction from the general public as the interest rates rose and inflationary trends ballooned. The affluent lifestyle of the 60s began to erode because of the economic paralysis.
Certainly, but ignoring the political decisions that helped effectuate this change is also a mistake. The Fordney-McCumber Act (1922) and the Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) created the highest-ever schedule of tariffs for foreign-made goods. This was done in response to the modernization of America, which gave us the technology to trade with foreign countries. Such trade opened up the international market and threatened the marketability of our domestic goods, as is evidenced today. The very basic principal of progressivism is that it is a political movement that addresses ideas and issues stemming from the modernization of American society. These tariffs were essentially a progressive attempt to address the recent modernization of American society within the recently developed international trade scene.
I agree that overextending credit was not a great idea. I also agree that it was the major cause of the most recent economic crash. To call it a progressive move, however, isn't quite correct. Maybe our contemporary definition of "progressive" has become skewed, especially with the Obama administration, but historically in the United States political system progressivism is characterized as a need for efficiency in society by means of ridding waste and corruption. As society changes, or modernizes, the manner in which we can satisfy this goal changes. New obstacles arise, and new solutions are needed. That's why the root word is "progress;" things are dynamic, not static.
Cultural progressivism has often focused on equality and social reform. Maybe that is what leads you to believe that progressivism would extend credit to everyone equally, despite their inability to manage the debt. However, economic ideas within progressivism must be (and traditionally have been) separated from social ideas. Giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back does not embody progressivism, as it promotes waste. I would argue that capitalism, the free market, and greed are what led to creditors extending loans to those who wouldn't be able to pay.
Just curious...how old are you?
All OTHER things remaining equal from the 2000 and 2004 elections - yes, the 18-29 demographic is what got Hussein elected. The majority of the over 30 white vote went GOP, and 98% of the black vote went Democrat. The only difference in this election from the last is the increase of voters between 18-29....It made the difference. Blacks did not get Obama elected - young whites did. Again - they made the difference.
Giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back does not embody progressivism, as it promotes waste. I would argue that capitalism, the free market, and greed are what led to creditors extending loans to those who wouldn't be able to pay.
Absolutely wrong. As they are the ones who have done it. When I say "progressive policy", I don't literally mean "progress" from an efficiency standpoint - I mean more less "liberal policy" guised as progress. We all know that is the farthest thing from actual "progressive policy". Progressive Policy instituted by Jimmy Carter and put on steroids by Billy Clinton promoted "giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back". See the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 (revamped several times in the 90's under Clinton). Creditors/Banks were forced to lend to undeserving people. It has all come to a head now. The subprime market collapsed because of this. If you want to listen to Barney Frank and believe that garbage he spews, then go ahead. But this crisis was a direct result of over extension of credit to people who could not handle it - all for the sake of International PR and getting to tell the rest of the world that even our lowest class can "afford" a home. Much in the same way the GD was caused. Its the entitlement mentality.
Functional - yes, life was much more functional then. People did what they NEEDED to do FIRST and not what wanted to do as #1 priority. People had their priorities a lot more straight than now. Sure - let me get that Playstation 3, the newest laptop, a new CD and eat out half the time - while the mortgage payment falls by the wayside. Do you think people did this "back in the day"? NO. People had to eat, so that got up at the crack of dawn to farm. Again, you are taking technological advances the last 100 years and showing me those as the reasons we are more functional now. Thats mixing apples and oranges. One of your examples - Airplanes. Most people take air travel for pleasure(a WANT) not business (functional - a NEED). Most technology we use is for personal convenience. My point was that people did things more out of NEED then. People more things NOW than ever out of WANT. Tell how that is more functional.
-
As long as you stick to Jack & Coke and not a high gravity beer, or one brewed locally, you're cool.
Do I need to complain to the moderator about you dragging a topic into another thread?
I'm really getting to the age where I don't care what you drink or smoke or listen to just stay the hell off of my lawn and leave me the hell alone.
(Where's that Grandpa Simpson emoticon?)
-
Well, again, with respect Counselor, you are.
A. I did not write that "we should follow older generations." ("we" meaning "you" in a general sense, that is the younger generation). "You" in a specific sense made that jump.
B. You write that "I act as if we elected a bunch of 20 year olds". No, I don't. I act as if we (and I use that term generally again, Counselor, because "I" did not vote for The ONE and I don't know who "you" voted for; "we" refers to a plurality of the electorate) elected a bunch of candy-ass, apologetic, socialists with communistic tendencies.
C. I did not complain that "you" (again, generally) voted for someone in an older generation who, as it turns out, is a mistake; I complained because it seems to me with my limited resource of information that "most" of "your" (again, in a general sense, not "you" in particular) generation (and, by "generation", Counselor, I'm referring to the "under 30" age group that voted in the 2008 Presidential election) voted for The ONE as opposed to the "under 30" age group that voted for McCain or someone else.
My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post. You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them. I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.
Seriously very interesting. I'd like to see your source for this statistical information (since some of your statistics are not listed in my source as far as I can determine) for two reasons (and, if I missed it in an earlier post I do apologize, Counselor):
A. For verification, in which case I would consider conceding your point (e.g. {or i.e.?} that more "older" people voted for The ONE than did people under 30) if I'm satisfied that my "old" brain can interpolate and cipher the same figures as your "young" one.
B. For future use, I was looking for a good source of statistical data on the 2008 election some time ago for my own edification and all that I could find was the article that I already sourced.
Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html (http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html)
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
125,225,901 total votes were counted:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)
15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million. That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29. Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over. In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama. 50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama. Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves. The 18-29 year old group only made 18%. So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.
-
Just curious...how old are you?
All OTHER things remaining equal from the 2000 and 2004 elections - yes, the 18-29 demographic is what got Hussein elected. The majority of the over 30 white vote went GOP, and 98% of the black vote went Democrat. The only difference in this election from the last is the increase of voters between 18-29....It made the difference. Blacks did not get Obama elected - young whites did. Again - they made the difference.
Absolutely wrong. As they are the ones who have done it. When I say "progressive policy", I don't literally mean "progress" from an efficiency standpoint - I mean more less "liberal policy" guised as progress. We all know that is the farthest thing from actual "progressive policy". Progressive Policy instituted by Jimmy Carter and put on steroids by Billy Clinton promoted "giving money to those who will never be able to responsibly pay it back". See the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 (revamped several times in the 90's under Clinton). Creditors/Banks were forced to lend to undeserving people. It has all come to a head now. The subprime market collapsed because of this. If you want to listen to Barney Frank and believe that garbage he spews, then go ahead. But this crisis was a direct result of over extension of credit to people who could not handle it - all for the sake of International PR and getting to tell the rest of the world that even our lowest class can "afford" a home. Much in the same way the GD was caused. Its the entitlement mentality.
Functional - yes, life was much more functional then. People did what they NEEDED to do and not wanted. People had their priorities a lot more straight than now. Sure - let me get that Playstation 3, the newest laptop, a new CD and eat out half the time - while the mortgage payment falls by the wayside. Do you think people did this "back in the day"? NO. People had to eat, so that got up at the crack of dawn to farm. Again, you are taking technological advances the last 100 years and showing me those as the reasons we are more functional now. Thats mixing apples and oranges. One of your examples - Airplanes. Most people take air travel for pleasure(a WANT) not business (functional - a NEED). Most technology we use is for personal convenience. My point was that people did things more out of NEED then. People more things NOW than ever out of WANT. Tell how that is more functional.
I think you can really boil this down to a simple sentiment.
There are those (Barney the Purple Dickosaur, Clinton, Obama, Carter, Pelosi) who believe it possible and perhaps noble to attempt to legislate equality of outcome. A chicken in every pot, as it were. Then there are the rest of us who believe that we should strive to provide the citizens of this country with equal opportunity, but allow personal strengths (and weaknesses) determine the outcomes.
-
My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post. You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them. I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.
Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html (http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html)
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
125,225,901 total votes were counted:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)
15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million. That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29. Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over. In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama. 50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama. Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves. The 18-29 year old group only made 18%. So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.
Margin of Victory in 2008 was 8 million - 66 million to 58 million.
66% of 18-29 Voters went to Obama in 2008. 24 million voters x 66% = Roughly 16 million who voted for Obama.
54% of 18-29 Voters went to Kerry in 2004. 20 million voters x 54% = Roughly 11 million who voted for Kerry.
47% of 18-29 Voters went to Gore in 2000. 16 million voters x 47% = Roughly 7.5-8 million who voted for Gore.
That is 5 million more than in 2004 and 8-9 million more than in 2000.
These increases would have been plenty enough to have pulled Gore or Kerry to a victory. These voters are what sealed the deal in 2008. Also - don't underestimate the Latino vote which came out in many more numbers than in 2000 and 2004, and went 80% to Obama. Although Blacks came out more to vote in this election, they voted about the same % as normal (95-99% to the Dems).
-
Google servers must be about to melt.
-
Google servers must be about to melt.
Teh googles is da monkeys nutz.....
-
My bad for using the word "you" in reply to your post. You had never stated any such things, however, other replies within this thread were making a big whoopty-doo about the older generation's wisdom and implying that we follow them. I was merely pointing out that such statements ignore the fact that we consistently elect people of older generations, and that our generation has less influence on the course of this country due to A) our inability to fill most positions of power due to our age, and B) our smaller population, which translates into less voting power.
Between 22 and 24 million Americans between the age of 18 and 29 voted in the 2008 election:
http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html (http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html)
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
66% of that 24 million (15.84 million) voted for Obama:
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf)
125,225,901 total votes were counted:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)
15.84 million is approximately 13% of 125 million. That means that 13% of voters which voted for Obama were 18-29. Therefore, the remaining 40% of votes that he received came from people 30 and over. In fact, 52% of people age 30-44 voted for Obama. 50% of those 45-64 voted for Obama. Those two age ranges made up 66% of the vote by themselves. The 18-29 year old group only made 18%. So yes, even though a higher percentage of young voters voted for Obama, we are smaller in number; a higher number of older people voted for Obama, and those older generations are the ones who accounted for 40% of his vote.
It seem that the plurality of the country regardless of age group voted for The ONE with the possible exception of the other 50% of the 45-64 year old group that did not vote for him. Assuming this data has not been adjusted 30 and up do seem to made up the largest age-related voting block for The ONE.
But, based on GH2001's post the 15,840,000 or so votes by the 18 - 29 age group was more than enough to push him over the top. I should point out that one of the sources you provided says "Youth Vote a Driving Force Behind Victory of President-Elect as Demographic Sets Record as 66% of 18-29 Year Olds Vote For Winning Candidate"
source: http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html (http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html)
It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win. So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.
Thanks for the information.
-
It seem that the plurality of the country regardless of age group voted for The ONE with the possible exception of the other 50% of the 45-64 year old group that did not vote for him. Assuming this data has not been adjusted 30 and up do seem to made up the largest age-related voting block for The ONE.
But, based on GH2001's post the 15,840,000 or so votes by the 18 - 29 age group was more than enough to push him over the top. I should point out that one of the sources you provided says source: http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html (http://www.declareyourself.com/pressroom/dy_announces_nearly_24_million_18-29_year_olds_vote_in_historic_2008_presidential_election.html)
It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win. So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.
Thanks for the information.
Not me. Voting is for squares.
-
Just curious...how old are you?
25
All OTHER things remaining equal from the 2000 and 2004 elections - yes, the 18-29 demographic is what got Hussein elected. The majority of the over 30 white vote went GOP, and 98% of the black vote went Democrat.
I was under the impression we were talking about generations; I didn't know we were also narrowing it down to ethnicity. I guess we could also say that white men in the age range of 30-44 who are between 5'8" and 6'2" went GOP by a decided margin, but that's straying from the initial category comparison: age.
The majority of people ages 30-44 (52%) voted for Obama. Approximately 36.3 million people between 30 and 44 voted, and 18.9 million of those voted for Obama. That is around 3 million more than the number of 18-29 year olds that voted for Obama. And, of course, about 23 more million people in the age bracket of 45-64 voted for Obama. That's almost as many 18-29 year olds that voted period. As stated over and over, 18-29 year olds played a part in the election of Obama. No doubt. Everyone who cast a vote for him did. However, to say that we are the sole cause, or to claim that we are even a major or large cause of that is to ignore the fact that more votes came from other age brackets than us. We're not the single generation that screwed things up; multiple generations gave millions of votes to the guy.
Absolutely wrong. As they are the ones who have done it. When I say "progressive policy", I don't literally mean "progress" from an efficiency standpoint - I mean more less "liberal policy" guised as progress.
Then that is where our misunderstanding came in. As a political science major, when I hear progressivism, I don't think about liberal guises; I think about the traditional form of American progressivism that arose beginning in the 1880s.
Functional - yes, life was much more functional then. People did what they NEEDED to do FIRST and not what wanted to do as #1 priority. People had their priorities a lot more straight than now. Sure - let me get that Playstation 3, the newest laptop, a new CD and eat out half the time - while the mortgage payment falls by the wayside. Do you think people did this "back in the day"? NO. People had to eat, so that got up at the crack of dawn to farm. Again, you are taking technological advances the last 100 years and showing me those as the reasons we are more functional now. Thats mixing apples and oranges. One of your examples - Airplanes. Most people take air travel for pleasure(a WANT) not business (functional - a NEED). Most technology we use is for personal convenience. My point was that people did things more out of NEED then. People more things NOW than ever out of WANT. Tell how that is more functional.
Again, this was a misunderstanding on how you're utilizing terminology. When you say something is functional, I think of it as working. If you say something is more functional than something else, then I think of it as working better (or more efficient). All of the items that I mentioned, including airplanes, are more functional than historical means of travel and productivity. To me, the concept of people putting wants before needs would be better categorized as spoiled. And while that is certainly a problem in our society, I'm not so certain that this attitude was created by poor politics beginning in the 1960s. I think our success and overabundance of resources has left us sitting on our laurels, and we always assumed that the jobs would be there, the income would be there, the resources would be there, etc. Hopefully people are now learning otherwise.
-
You know, when I said I hated old people, I meant the ones that drain social security, drive too slow in the fast lane, and refuse to die. I only stated 35 because that was ole whatshisnames age when he asked what I thought was old.
-
It's pretty clear to me that your age group did not play a small role in The ONE's win. So, you're right in that more 30+ year olds voted for The ONE than 18-29 year olds and I'm right in that the yute vote was nearly twice enough votes to give The ONE the win.
Of course. I never said that we played a small role. Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles. The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29). The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.
My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama. Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama. Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes. Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes. Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation. That was my only point.
-
I was under the impression we were talking about generations; I didn't know we were also narrowing it down to ethnicity. I guess we could also say that white men in the age range of 30-44 who are between 5'8" and 6'2" went GOP by a decided margin, but that's straying from the initial category comparison: age.
Now you're just being a smartass. :) My point in bringing up the white and black votes was to show that the voting patterns of those 2 demographics didnt change much from 2000/2004 to 2008. The one big delta I saw from 00/04 to 08 was the 18-29. The black vote essentially stayed the same percentage wise.
Then that is where our misunderstanding came in. As a political science major, when I hear progressivism, I don't think about liberal guises; I think about the traditional form of American progressivism that arose beginning in the 1880s.
In political circles you should know what is meant by "progressive policy". Its pretty standard for the 'liberal' side of the aisle to use this terminology. It sounds so much better than 'liberal' or 'socialist'. Thats why they use it. ;)
Again, this was a misunderstanding on how you're utilizing terminology. When you say something is functional, I think of it as working. If you say something is more functional than something else, then I think of it as working better (or more efficient). All of the items that I mentioned, including airplanes, are more functional than historical means of travel and productivity.
The word functional in what I do for a living means sticks with me everywhere I go. I can see it getting misinterpreted pretty easily so no worries. By functional I meant - Needs vs Wants. People were more efficient. When they did something, work was a byproduct instead of pleasure of entertainment. Its all good VV.
To me, the concept of people putting wants before needs would be better categorized as spoiled. And while that is certainly a problem in our society, I'm not so certain that this attitude was created by poor politics beginning in the 1960s. I think our success and overabundance of resources has left us sitting on our laurels, and we always assumed that the jobs would be there, the income would be there, the resources would be there, etc. Hopefully people are now learning otherwise.
Fair enough
-
25
If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25.
Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are.
-
Of course. I never said that we played a small role. Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles. The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29). The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.
My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama. Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama. Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes. Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes. Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation. That was my only point.
Well, fair enough, Vandy Vol.
You spin it your way and I'll spin it mine. The way I see it the least culpable age group percentage-wise in electing The ONE were the 65+ Seniors who voted 51% in favor of McCain. Next there's the 45 to 64 age group who split their vote statistically even, 50%/50%, as best that I can tell. That makes the 18 to 44 Age Groups as the ones that pushed The ONE into the White House.
-
Now you're just being a smartass. :) My point in bringing up the white and black votes was to show that the voting patterns of those 2 demographics didnt change much from 2000/2004 to 2008. The one big delta I saw from 00/04 to 08 was the 18-29. The black vote essentially stayed the same percentage wise.\
I can be a smartass, but I honestly wasn't attempting to be this time. The younger age group did vote in record numbers, there's no doubt about that. But, of course, the candidates changed too. Who's to say that the youth wouldn't have voted differently in 2004 than they did in 2008? Bush may have won without dispute if the youth had voted in these numbers. Now, I seriously doubt that would happen, but the point is that there are other deltas involved. Different candidates, backlash against Republicans, two wars in the Middle East, economic recession, etc. The age group that we are discussing only made up 18% of the total number of votes, so there were a lot of factors that led a lot of people to lean toward Obama; it wasn't just the youth.
-
Well, fair enough, Vandy Vol.
You spin it your way and I'll spin it mine. The way I see it the least culpable age group percentage-wise in electing The ONE were the 65+ Seniors who voted 51% in favor of McCain. Next there's the 45 to 64 age group who split their vote statistically even, 50%/50%, as best that I can tell. That makes the 18 to 44 Age Groups as the ones that pushed The ONE into the White House.
Well, if you want to group the 18-29 and 30-44 together and call them the most culpable, I have no problems with that. However, there was a divide within this thread between people in their 30's and people in their 20's as to which generation is doing what (although there's not even really a generational gap between those age groups).
My point was to show that people in their 20's don't hold the majority of offices of power, and that we don't make up the most influential voting population. The country's leaders are of a different generation than the twenty somethings, and the vast majority of people who voted for those leaders are of a different generation than the twenty somethings, so it was rather difficult for me to see how we were responsible for any downward spiral of the country. Again, I concur that we were part of it as far as voting goes, but the inferred sentiment within this thread was that we were the major cause of it, which just isn't so.
-
If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25.
Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are.
That's a might large paintbrush you're using, partner.
-
If only I'd known half what I thought I knew when I was 25.
Overgrown teenagers, that's what you are.
If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.
-
If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.
I know that's what it says, but I don't think he's 36.
-
If only you knew 1/10th of what you think you know at 36.
Sure because we were born old?
When you reach over 30 with a wife and kids, you'll look back and wonder what part of the idiocy you played. You'll wonder what was I ever thinking. But then again, there are some that never get it. i hope you guys are not one of those.
The Kenyan Jesus already had 46% of the vote. For that is the number of Americans that do not pay taxes. All he had to do was get a few pissed off independents to vote for him and he got it. Now those people are wondering just who they taught a lesson to.
But back to the original post. Birmingham sucks because of the crappy leadership that the non taxpaying people keep voting into office. Not because they shut a crappy music playing radio station down.
-
Sure because we were born old?
When you reach over 30 with a wife and kids, you'll look back and wonder what part of the idiocy you played. You'll wonder what was I ever thinking. But then again, there are some that never get it. i hope you guys are not one of those.
I know what you mean. I used to be a staunch hard-right Republican in my youth.
I was an officer in Auburn University College Republicans. Now that I'm pushing 30 I wish I had known better.
-
I know what you mean. I used to be a staunch hard-right Republican in my youth.
I was an officer in Auburn University College Republicans. Now that I'm pushing 30 I wish I had known better.
Hah, zing.
-
Of course. I never said that we played a small role. Rather, what I have been asserting is that we played one of the smaller roles. The number of people who voted for Obama in the 45-64 age group (23 million) was almost the total number of people 18-29 who voted for either candidate (24 million total voters 18-29). The 30-44 age group had 3 million more votes than the 18-29 age group, as we already discussed.
My point was not to suggest that our age group had no role, nor was it to suggest that the majority of our age group did not support Obama. Rather, my point was to show that we did not have as large of an impact on the election as the older age groups who are complaining that the younguns ruined the country by electing Obama. Of the four age groups, the youngest actually supplied the third largest number of votes. Of the four age groups, two of the older ones have more voters and would be able to outvote us if we were single handedly ruining the country with our votes. Yet, those two generations supplied more votes to Obama than the younger generation. That was my only point.
I think you and Tarheel are both right in your assessments, it's just a matter of what is being focused on.
I'll make an analogy to a basketball game.
Let's say, in a fictional world, Auburn beats Kentucky 92 to 87. After the game, someone asks Lebo how they pulled it off. He says "well, the difference in the game was our free throws. We got to the line 28 times and made 23 of them. That's pretty damn good and was what put us over the edge in this game. Without getting to the line, and without shooting 82%, we wouldn't have won that game".
This concept and assessment by Lebo would make total sense to the reporters and anyone listening or anyone that watched the game, and anyone that had followed the two teams. No one, not a single person anywhere, would try to correct Lebo and say "yeah, but coach, the free throws played a role, but didn't you score more points from regular two point and three point baskets? I mean, didn't those points actually contribute more to the win than the free throws? They were only 23 of your total 92 points. Your two point baskets accounted for 42 of your 92 points. And your 9 three pointers accounted for 27 of your points".
Of course, the guy from the Birmingham News would be right, Auburn did get more points from the other two places. But Lebo, and Kentucky, knows that the difference....what was unique, or what had an unusual impact on the game...were the free throws. Both how many were taken and how many were made. That would be what stands out.
So while you are correct, the 18-29 year olds didn't comprise the largest number of voters, just like reporter was right about the 2 and 3 points baskets....but it was, in a lot of ways, like the free throws. The 68% of that group, which was an unusually large group in 2008, could easily be considered the "difference maker" in the election/game.
Anyway, there is no arguing with the numbers posted. The 18-29 year olds were not the largest group of voters to vote for Obama. Tarheel isn't arguing that they were. But it seems that you could also bend a little and see the other perspective that their impact on the election was larger than their numbers would indicate. Their votes were the "23 of 28 from the line" that helped them win.
-
So while you are correct, the 18-29 year olds didn't comprise the largest number of voters, just like reporter was right about the 2 and 3 points baskets....but it was, in a lot of ways, like the free throws. The 68% of that group, which was an unusually large group in 2008, could easily be considered the "difference maker" in the election/game.
JA, this is what I have been trying to get across to our Vanderbilt friend. I never argued the numbers game. I simply said that group was the difference in 2008. If they had voted 66% and came out in those numbers in 2000/2004, Bush would not have gotten elected. Not even close.
-
I know what you mean. I used to be a staunch hard-right Republican in my youth.
I was an officer in Auburn University College Republicans. Now that I'm pushing 30 I wish I had known better.
Just curious, because I have no personal issues with you in the least, and actually enjoy the discussions....but what, in general, do you wish you "had known better" back then that you know now?
And, and I could be wrong on this, but I don't know that CC was so much saying that once you grow up you'll be a Republican, but maybe that, as was / is the case with all of us, we reassess and change our beliefs as we grow older. As we grow older we experience more and see things more for what they really are, and less for the ideology that things portray.
A good example would be the 68% of the 18-29 that voted for Obama. My guess is that when that group is 38-49, at least 68% of that 68% will think "what the hell was I thinking?". They may already be thinking this.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe they know exactly what they were voting for and actually do want us to be an enormous, government-run European state. But even if that's what they think they want....I think if they live under that for a while, they will long to be America again.
Anyway, back to my original question, just curious about the things you wish you had known back then that you know now.
-
Funny, when I was a teenager and younger I was fairly liberal on everything. Once I got a little older, got a job, and played "grown-up" I realized that my views needed to change. I am now more conservative than ever with most policy issues. Social issues I seem to lean more towards "I don't give a fuck, just don't infringe on my freedoms or privacy and make me try to accept it".
Seriously though, why are we arguing over beer and radio stations when the biggest problem we face is that the economy is in the shitter and is getting worse? Lets fix the big issues and then worry about the little petty shit for a later date. This is what pisses me off about our Government on both levels. EX. Several years back we actually called in a session to change the name of the state song. Fuck that shit, worry about businesses going bankrupt, schools being FUBAR and what we can do to fix it. Deal with that petty kind of shit later on when things are running good.
-
Funny, when I was a teenager and younger I was fairly liberal on everything. Once I got a little older, got a job, and played "grown-up" I realized that my views needed to change. I am now more conservative than ever with most policy issues. Social issues I seem to lean more towards "I don't give a fuck, just don't infringe on my freedoms or privacy and make me try to accept it".
Seriously though, why are we arguing over beer and radio stations when the biggest problem we face is that the economy is in the shitter and is getting worse? Lets fix the big issues and then worry about the little petty shit for a later date. This is what pisses me off about our Government on both levels. EX. Several years back we actually called in a session to change the name of the state song. Fuck that shit, worry about businesses going bankrupt, schools being FUBAR and what we can do to fix it. Deal with that petty kind of shit later on when things are running good.
I completely agree with you. However, the thing that government is best at is being ineffective.
-
Anyway, back to my original question, just curious about the things you wish you had known back then that you know now.
To be honest, I'd rather not get into a holy war on specific issues. At least not today. Not in this thread. In summation, I'm talking about the social side of conservatism. I'm still economically quite conservative.
Funny, when I was a teenager and younger I was fairly liberal on everything. Once I got a little older, got a job, and played "grown-up" I realized that my views needed to change. I am now more conservative than ever with most policy issues. Social issues I seem to lean more towards "I don't give a fuck, just don't infringe on my freedoms or privacy and make me try to accept it".
Seriously though, why are we arguing over beer and radio stations when the biggest problem we face is that the economy is in the shitter and is getting worse? Lets fix the big issues and then worry about the little petty shit for a later date. This is what pisses me off about our Government on both levels. EX. Several years back we actually called in a session to change the name of the state song. Fuck that shit, worry about businesses going bankrupt, schools being FUBAR and what we can do to fix it. Deal with that petty kind of shit later on when things are running good.
Sounds like we agree mostly then. On social issues, I lean heavily towards it's none of anyone's fuckin business what other people choose to do with their lives.
In terms of how this Free The Hops initiative (and legalizing gambling, for that matter), are "petty issues" while our economy is in the shitter, I disagree.
I think doing away with restrictions on these businesses that would bring new jobs into Alabama can only be a good thing. Unless you know of a magic wand that "fixes" the economy some other way.
Oh, and as for the radio station thing, that was just Jeff bitching. No one was advocating any kind of political action or anything. Just venting about how it sucks that a good station is going away.
-
To be honest, I'd rather not get into a holy war on specific issues. At least not today. Not in this thread. In summation, I'm talking about the social side of conservatism. I'm still economically quite conservative.Sounds like we agree mostly then. On social issues, I lean heavily towards it's none of anyone's phukin business what other people choose to do with their lives.
In terms of how this Free The Hops initiative (and legalizing gambling, for that matter), are "petty issues" while our economy is in the poopter, I disagree.
I think restrictions on these businesses that would bring new jobs into Alabama can only be a good thing. Unless you know of a magic wand that "fixes" the economy some other way.
Oh, and as for the radio station thing, that was just Jeff bitching. No one was advocating any kind of political action or anything. Just venting about how it sucks that a good station is going away.
Now legalizing gambling is a great place to start......Free the Hops initiative, I don't think will do as much for the economy of this state than some do. Yeah it will create some jobs, but the main distributors will keep them beat down by price cuts and cutting their own throats that it will not amount to much. People (even me) are buying cheap poop in hard times. I am buying KY Gentlemen right now, I am in danger of losing my job, times are though and I will drink what is cheaper until times get better. I would rather be buying Makers but I can get twice as much KY Gentlemen for the same price. Most others in my position will be doing the same thing.
I would have voted for the lottery bill that Folsom tried to pass, but it was poorly written with no account on where revenue and percentages were to be allocated. Give me something with structure and where "we" (the people) can see where it is being spent and hold them accountable, then I will be the first out there to drum up support. Like I said in another thread, w/o that, it doesn't get my support. I don't trust the phuking phukers! :)
No magic wand but the first step to fixing the economy is to cut spending, and put more dollars in the peoples pocket to spend. Not the only step, but would be a nice first step.
It's hard to keep up with how threads get hijacked (reason #1239846578 to love the X), but I had forgot what the OP was about.
EDIT: I can honestly understand where Kaos is coming from in these threads. Not that I agree or disagree with him everytime, but I definitely see where he is coming from and can respect it.
-
It's hard to keep up with how threads get hijacked (reason #1239846578 to love the X), but I had forgot what the OP was about.
(http://cdn.wn.com/ph/img/9f/52/48cd9ee0ac2f221cab22ab578031-grande.jpg)
-
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t129/section8_2007/olivia-munn-3.jpg)
-
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t129/section8_2007/olivia-munn-3.jpg)
I would do the luge with her. And probably jizz in my pants as well.
-
Great to see that this thread has a TigersX appropriate happy ending.
-
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t129/section8_2007/olivia-munn-3.jpg)
Scoundrel! How did you get your hands on these compromising photos of my Olivia. She intended them for my eyes only!
-
Great to see that this thread has a TigersX appropriate happy ending.
I do what I can!
Scoundrel! How did you get your hands on these compromising photos of my Olivia. She intended them for my eyes only!
Sorry man, she told me she loved me and I could have them.
-
Just curious, because I have no personal issues with you in the least, and actually enjoy the discussions....but what, in general, do you wish you "had known better" back then that you know now?
Everything that he now knows to be "bullshit" from the greatest of all philosophers, Penn & Teller.
-
JA, this is what I have been trying to get across to our Vanderbilt friend. I never argued the numbers game. I simply said that group was the difference in 2008. If they had voted 66% and came out in those numbers in 2000/2004, Bush would not have gotten elected. Not even close.
The difference in the youth vote isn't as great as it's being made out to be. For example, in 2004, the 18-29 year old voters made up 17% of total voters, whereas in 2008 they were 18%. More people may have voted in the 2008 election, but the proportions of voters were relatively the same. Yes, more youth voted for Obama in 2008 than they did Kerry in 2004. However, more 30-44 year olds voted for Bush in 2004 than they did McCain in 2008. And more 45-65 year olds voted for Bush in 2004 than they did McCain in 2008. The changes in voting patterns that led to Obama's victory are seen in several generations, not just the younger generation. Saying that the youth was "the" difference is ignoring the differences seen in more than one generation.
Going with the basketball analogy, if a team wins by three, it would be the equivalent of saying that one player's three point shot was more important than another player's three made free throws, or another players 10 points. It was a team effort, and it took all of their cumulative points to win. Those who scored more points on the team are typically viewed as a major reason as to why the team won, regardless of how small the victory may be; without those major points, the team wouldn't have even been close. In this situation, the "major points" come from the larger voting populations. The youth (18-29) was not the larger voting population. The majority of votes came from other generations.
Again, this isn't to say we didn't play a part. Yes, the guy who scored three points is going to be one of the many reasons why the team won by three. However, he is not "the" reason. And he's not going to get MVP at the end of the day for scoring three points.
-
I guess all old people aren't so bad after all...
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/975/69/n308828864193_7310.jpg)
-
I guess all old people aren't so bad after all...
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/975/69/n308828864193_7310.jpg)
This 1 badass makes up for a lot.
-
I'll make an analogy to a basketball game.
Let's say, in a fictional world, Auburn beats Kentucky 92 to 87. After the game, someone asks Lebo how they pulled it off. He says "well, the difference in the game was our free throws. We got to the line 28 times and made 23 of them. That's pretty damn good and was what put us over the edge in this game. Without getting to the line, and without shooting 82%, we wouldn't have won that game".
You're a psychic. Or a psycho.
Auburn lost to Florida 78-70 last night. Here was Lebo's summary of the game.
Foul shots were the difference in the game," said Auburn head coach Jeff Lebo. "That's what it came down to really to be honest with you. Some of these were right at the end of the game, obviously, but we put them on the line that many times. We didn*t shoot the ball well. Frankie (Sullivan) struggled shooting the basketball, and that hurt us a little bit. Foul shooting was the difference in the game."
Uncanny.
-
You're a psychic. Or a psycho.
Auburn lost to Florida 78-70 last night. Here was Lebo's summary of the game.
Foul shots were the difference in the game," said Auburn head coach Jeff Lebo. "That's what it came down to really to be honest with you. Some of these were right at the end of the game, obviously, but we put them on the line that many times. We didn*t shoot the ball well. Frankie (Sullivan) struggled shooting the basketball, and that hurt us a little bit. Foul shooting was the difference in the game."
Uncanny.
I'll be picking up those "Mega Millions" and "Power Ball" lotto tickets on the way home.
VandyVol...you kinda sidestepped my point a bit. Again, it's not to imply that the youth vote was larger than other voting segments. That obviously wasn't the case. But there was something unusual and noteworthy about the youth vote. Something that stood out from the other groups. They voted for Obama at 68% rate.
Last night Auburn shot 7-29 from 3 pt range. That's probably the most direct reason we lost the game. But Lebo referenced Florida's foul shooting. The reason? Because we put them on the line FORTY times and they made 32 of them (80%). Even though that didn't account for the majority of Florida's points...it was unusual and noteworthy and what Lebo deemed as the "difference in the game". You put someone on the line 40 times, you're likely going to lose, no matter what other baskets (2pt and 3pt FGs) account for more points.
If one side gets 68% of the youth vote, they are likely going to win, no matter the fact that other segments will account for more of the total votes. It's about what one thing stood out. What one thing was unusual. What one thing, more than anything else, exceeded expectations to the degree that it would be labeled the "difference".
To me, putting a team on the line 40 times exceeded expectations more than any other stat from last night.
And to me, Obama getting 68% of the youth vote exceeds expectations more than any other stat from the election.
Oh yeah, and more importantly...LEBO SUCKS BALLS, FIRE HIS ASS PRONTO!
-
Last night Auburn shot 7-29 from 3 pt range. That's probably the most direct reason we lost the game. But Lebo referenced Florida's foul shooting. The reason? Because we put them on the line FORTY times and they made 32 of them (80%). Even though that didn't account for the majority of Florida's points...it was unusual and noteworthy and what Lebo deemed as the "difference in the game". You put someone on the line 40 times, you're likely going to lose, no matter what other baskets (2pt and 3pt FGs) account for more points.
I'm pretty sure Auburn lost because they suck at basketball.
-
VandyVol...you kinda sidestepped my point a bit. Again, it's not to imply that the youth vote was larger than other voting segments. That obviously wasn't the case. But there was something unusual and noteworthy about the youth vote. Something that stood out from the other groups. They voted for Obama at 68% rate.
Once more...I never said that the youth didn't decidedly vote for Obama. The youth has voted democratic in most elections by a majority, but this was certainly a larger majority than usual. Even with a larger majority, we still can not be referred to as "the" reason. Was it different than in past years? Yes, but so were the other age groups' voting patterns. Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups? Yes, but the change was not big enough to make us "the" reason that Obama won; youth Obama voters did not make up 51% of the vote. We may have been the biggest change, but that change still did not make us the majority vote, and thus we are not "the" reason for anyone's election. No one gets elected based on the fact that they received 13% of votes.
There was an uncanny change, yes. But it wasn't big enough of a change within a large enough voting population to make it "the" reason. Sure, you can say that if 66% (not 68%) of youth didn't vote for Obama, he wouldn't have won. But then we can also say that if 52% of 30-44 year olds didn't vote for Obama, he also wouldn't have won. In fact, he would have lost by more votes if the 52% of 30-44 year olds were absent than if the 66% of youth were absent.
We were "a" change, and we were probably the biggest change as far as percentages, but we can not make up a voting majority and thus can not be "the" reason that any candidate wins. The youth's 13% of the vote, regardless of how drastic or uncanny of a change it was, can not be pointed to as the only reason Obama won. He required (and received) more than 13% of the vote to win, and the majority of those necessary votes were supplied by other age groups.
If Florida had only made their 32 foul shots, they would have lost 70-32. If Florida wouldn't have gone to the line at all, but would have made all of their other points, they would have lost 70-46. You can point to either presence of points as "the" reason they won, but the truth is that they needed both sets of points to win. Neither individual set of points is "the" reason they won.
-
Once more...I never said that the youth didn't decidedly vote for Obama. The youth has voted democratic in most elections by a majority, but this was certainly a larger majority than usual. Even with a larger majority, we still can not be referred to as "the" reason. Was it different than in past years? Yes, but so were the other age groups' voting patterns. Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups? Yes, but the change was not big enough to make us "the" reason that Obama won; youth Obama voters did not make up 51% of the vote. We may have been the biggest change, but that change still did not make us the majority vote, and thus we are not "the" reason for anyone's election. No one gets elected based on the fact that they received 13% of votes.
There was an uncanny change, yes. But it wasn't big enough of a change within a large enough voting population to make it "the" reason. Sure, you can say that if 66% (not 68%) of youth didn't vote for Obama, he wouldn't have won. But then we can also say that if 52% of 30-44 year olds didn't vote for Obama, he also wouldn't have won. In fact, he would have lost by more votes if the 52% of 30-44 year olds were absent than if the 66% of youth were absent.
We were "a" change, and we were probably the biggest change as far as percentages, but we can not make up a voting majority and thus can not be "the" reason that any candidate wins. The youth's 13% of the vote, regardless of how drastic or uncanny of a change it was, can not be pointed to as the only reason Obama won. He required (and received) more than 13% of the vote to win, and the majority of those necessary votes were supplied by other age groups.
If Florida had only made their 32 foul shots, they would have lost 70-32. If Florida wouldn't have gone to the line at all, but would have made all of their other points, they would have lost 70-46. You can point to either presence of points as "the" reason they won, but the truth is that they needed both sets of points to win. Neither individual set of points is "the" reason they won.
I guess we'll both just have to let the horse we're beating rot in peace (after I get in my last swing ;) ). By the way, I'm not arguing against your points, they are all valid in the sense that you're making them. And while what you're saying is (still) true, you still seem to not be grasping the point. Well, you kind of are grasping it, but not realizing it maybe...
"but this was certainly a larger majority than usual"
and
"Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups? Yes"
and
"We may have been the biggest change".
You followed each of those statements with the obvious "but..it still didn't make us the the 'biggest' group.....blah, blah, blah". Which is very true, and has never been my point.
All of those things you admitted to in the quotes above are my main point. At no point did the youth vote ever become the largest number of votes. But being the biggest change, the most drastic change, and larger % than normal....all contributed to why I'm saying it could be labeled "the" reason.
The 50% to 54% he received in the other age groups was well within a "normal" range of voting %. It's not unusual for one candidate to get 52% or whatever, of an age group. It's not unusual to shoot 50 FGs in a basketball game. Both things are totally normal, expected, and therefore not even noteworthy.
However, getting 68% of a particular age group is a big deal It is drastic. It is out of the ordinary. Shooting 40 foul shots in a game is unusual. It is excessive. It is noteworthy when the game is over.
Why do you think Lebo said this after the Florida game? (and "he's an idiot is not an acceptable answer ;) )
Foul shots were the difference in the game
Why do you think he said that?
It didn't account for most of their points. And teams shoot foul shots every game, so it was nothing new. The reason it was emphasized, and even called "the difference", was because it was out of the ordinary in relation to expectations or "the norm" of any regular basketball game. It stood out. It was excessive. And the unusually high number of foul shots was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Florida's point total. Instrumental to the point that Lebo, when looking at the loss, was led to point to it as "the difference in the game".
What I'm doing is no different. The 68% youth vote is the exact same thing. It was out of the ordinary in relation to expectations and "the norm" of regular elections. It stood out. It was excessive. The unusually high % was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Obama's vote total. Instrumental to the point that I, and tons of the press, when looking at the election results, were led to point to it as "the difference" in the election.
MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/)
Youth vote may have been key in Obama's win
Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin
TIME - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.html)
Obama's Youth Vote Triumph
CBS News - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3837466.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3837466.shtml)
His victory may well be the first in which the youth vote played a decisive role.
Thenextright.com - http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/the-straight-ticket-youth-vote (http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/the-straight-ticket-youth-vote)
Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.
On a different note, kinda, here is some of the text to the link posted above. I hadn't seen this broken down anywhere before, but it's very interesting and makes the last quote I posted above make sense.
People have been focusing on whether the youth vote was up. It was -- slightly: going from 17 to 18 percent. But the real story about the youth vote is not how many "new" voters Obama got to show up. It's how he produced a gargantuan 25% swing among existing young voters, or those who were sure to vote for the first time anyway.
How big?
18 percent times a 25 percent increase in the Democratic margin equals 4.5 points, or a majority of Obama's popular vote margin. Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.
Related to this are African Americans. Here too, turnout was up a point from 12% to 13%, or Census + 1. But that's only part of the story. The biggest part is Obama's increased margins, moving from 88-11 in '04 to 95-4 in '08. The black vote's net contribution to Democrats moved from 9.7 points to 11.8 points (91% x 13%), or an increase of 2.1 points.
Now, let's be generous and shave 10% off the youth effect assuming some of these youths are African American, but also tempered by the fact that the young black vote is already so highly Democratic that a 25% swing is impossible here. 4.1 percent (18-29) + 2.1 percent (AA's) equals 6.2 percent. Obama's current popular vote margin is 6.1 percent.
Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.
-
All of those things you admitted to in the quotes above are my main point. At no point did the youth vote ever become the largest number of votes. But being the biggest change, the most drastic change, and larger % than normal....all contributed to why I'm saying it could be labeled "the" reason.
The "biggest," most "dramatic," or "uncanny" change in percentage does not mean that it is the "biggest" change or the "biggest" reason. 100% of ten people is a large percentage, but not a large number of people when compared to 50% of 100. 100% of ten people when compared to a previously recorded 20% of ten people is a large percentage increase, but that "drastic" percentage change doesn't compare when you're talking about percentages of other groups that are much larger.
However, getting 68% of a particular age group is a big deal It is drastic. It is out of the ordinary. Shooting 40 foul shots in a game is unusual. It is excessive. It is noteworthy when the game is over.
It's unusual, drastic, uncanny, noteworthy and a host of other adjectives. However, it is not "the" reason (meaning the only reason) they won. Saying that X happened only because of Y means that A, B and C didn't have to occur; only Y is required. Stating that the 32 points and the 32 points alone is the reason they won is not true, because 32 points alone won't cut it. Noteworthy? Yes. A part of the reason why they won? Yes. Did it stand out? Yes. But saying that it is "the" reason is suggesting that, absent everything else, the 32 points alone would have made them win. That's not the case, just as the 13% of votes for Obama from the youth would not have made Obama win. That 13% was not "the" reason he won.
The fact that he received 53% of total votes is "the" reason that he won, just as Florida scoring more total points than Auburn is "the" reason they won. There is always going to be differences between games, and between elections, but the only one real reason as to why a person/team wins is because they get more votes/points. Every voter/player has a part in that, and some voters/players have more of a part than others. Nonetheless, it requires a majority of votes to win, and unless a particular group can, by themselves, make up that majority, then they are not "the" reason that the election turned out as it did; their votes, whether it was a change from the past or not, required the addition of other votes in order for Obama to win.
Case in point:
Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.
According to that article that you posted, Obama would have won even if the youth vote had not drastically changed and had remained the same as it was in 2004. The change in the youth's voting can not be "the" only reason he won if he would have won without that change.
-
You guys should write a paper.
-
According to that article that you posted, Obama would have won even if the youth vote had not drastically changed and had remained the same as it was in 2004. The change in the youth's voting can not be "the" only reason he won if he would have won without that change.
We're mostly just choosing to look at it differently, obviously.
And you're right, he would have won. But he would have won by 2 points, not 6+ points...that's an enormous difference caused by such a small group. My whole point was that the youth vote has never had that kind of impact on an election. They have never provided a candidate with such a significant bump in % of overall votes.
Can we agree then that the change in the youth vote and the change in the African American vote were "the" difference? Because combined they account for more than the total 6.1% margin of victory Obama won by.
:sw:
-
And you're right, he would have won. But he would have won by 2 points, not 6+ points...that's an enormous difference caused by such a small group.
It's a difference, yes. And you can even go as far to say that the youth is "the" reason why he won by 6 points and not by 2 points. However, the youth vote is not "the" reason for him winning. Even though the margin of victory would have been smaller, and even if the change in the margin of victory is "enormous," the fact still remains that he would have won. Therefore, the youth vote is not "the" reason for winning.
My whole point was that the youth vote has never had that kind of impact on an election. They have never provided a candidate with such a significant bump in % of overall votes.
They had a noticeable impact, yes. It was a noticeably different impact than they've ever had before, yes. It was a drastic change in their impact from the past, yes. And it was such an impact that his victory margin was greater. My only point is that the youth vote is not "the" reason for the victory. "The" reason that anyone wins an election is the fact that they received more votes. The youth did not supply the majority of the votes, nor would the absence of their drastic voting pattern affect the fact that Obama would still win by a majority, albeit a smaller one. I point this out because the comment had been made that the youth was "the" reason for the current administration. I'm not trying to disagree that the youth did not play a part, I'm just pointing out that we didn't single handedly do it. And, more precisely, I'm pointing out that we were only 13% responsible. The remainder of the votes required to win were made up by older generations.
Can we agree then that the change in the youth vote and the change in the African American vote were "the" difference? Because combined they account for more than the total 6.1% margin of victory Obama won by.
I can agree that it was certainly one difference. And I can agree that it was probably the largest difference, when you combine those two groups together. But again, it is the largest as far as changes in percentage go, not the largest difference in number of voters. So we're still back to the point that it may be a noteworthy change, and may equal the margin of victory, but it is not, by itself, "the" reason for a victory. "The" reason for victory is receiving the majority of votes (or, more accurately, receiving majority votes in enough states to win the electoral college). Unless the group you are pointing out constitutes the majority of votes, then it can not be considered "the" reason for winning.
-
:dead:
-
:puke: :thumsup:
-
:soap:
Back to the original subject an update.
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-buzz/2010/03/going_down_fighting_only_adult_album_alternative_station_leaves_airwaves.html (http://blog.al.com/birmingham-buzz/2010/03/going_down_fighting_only_adult_album_alternative_station_leaves_airwaves.html)