U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-31-2012, 02:17 PM
 
3,421 posts, read 2,583,934 times
Reputation: 1238

Advertisements

Here is a question that I've never been able to figure out about you libertarians, who is your voting base? You can forget about the minority vote and any liberals. The only people I see even being interested in your party is rich white people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2012, 02:28 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,722,776 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Come on, I bet if I sent you back to the 1800s you'd be singing a completely different tune on best years for the standard of living. One trip to the outhouse on a cold winter night and you'd be begging to come back to your nice climate controlled modern home.
Indeed.
Not to mention the fact that the average life expectancy of newborn in 1850 was a mere 38 years.
In 1900 it was still only 48 and even by 1920 it was still only 56. A big improvement over 1850's 38 but still nothing to crow about by todays' standards (roughly the same as places like Ethiopia and Botswana today).

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,809,077 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
I assumed the rich lost the most during the last recession too. I mean I've not looked it up or anything but it is often pointed out that the wealthy have far more of their net worth invested in things like the stock market, and that dropped from what 14k to 6k? Be an interesting thing to look into.



Come on, I bet if I sent you back to the 1800s you'd be singing a completely different tune on best years for the standard of living. One trip to the outhouse on a cold winter night and you'd be begging to come back to your nice climate controlled modern home.
Do you really think our most entitled, our politicians, are hurting any?
Source: The Hill – Pelosi’s Wealth Grows by 62%
Nancy Pelosi’s Portfolio Returns 62% in 2010 – Investing With Congress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,809,077 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
Here is a question that I've never been able to figure out about you libertarians, who is your voting base? You can forget about the minority vote and any liberals. The only people I see even being interested in your party is rich white people?
Patriots, that have a national sense of identity as to what America used to stand for, liberty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 08:35 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,683,962 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Indeed.
Not to mention the fact that the average life expectancy of newborn in 1850 was a mere 38 years.
Yup, only one completely out of touch with reality would consider the lifestyle in the 1800s the high watermark of quality of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Cool post and pretty links but I certainly didn't claim anyone was or was not hurting. I'll try again, take your time with it:

Bentbow was implying this recession was different than previous because back then it was the rich who lost the most. I speculated that is the case this time too, just based on assumptions of where they park their money. I never said they were hurting, just that their net worth likely went down by a higher amount than your average Joe.

Do you disagree with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,809,077 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Yup, only one completely out of touch with reality would consider the lifestyle in the 1800s the high watermark of quality of life.


Cool post and pretty links but I certainly didn't claim anyone was or was not hurting. I'll try again, take your time with it:

Bentbow was implying this recession was different than previous because back then it was the rich who lost the most. I speculated that is the case this time too, just based on assumptions of where they park their money. I never said they were hurting, just that their net worth likely went down by a higher amount than your average Joe.

Do you disagree with that?
What an odd way of expressing yourself. I think I grasp what you are trying to say, they lose more in net worth because they have more, however it affects them less. Pelosi's investments are worth 62% more, as of 2010, so she isn't losing, she's gaining plenty. When the gov't is this involved in private business, if your in the favored category, you make out very well. GE Immelt comes to mind. Is Soros worth less? It all depends on who you are, and who you know.

“Crony capitalism was responsible for the failure of the stimulus — about $90 billion went to clean energy,” Tom Borelli, a PhD and director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project, told Newsmax on Friday.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama’s 'Crony-Gate' Scandal Widens — Billions Now Under Scrutiny

On Friday, the National Center for Public Policy Research distributed an e-mail headlined: “Solyndra is only the tip of the crony capitalism iceberg.”

“Congress needs to determine if key advisors of President Obama were rewarded with stimulus money in return for political donations and support of the president’s energy policy,” says Borelli. “There is a clear relationship between recipients of economic stimulus funds and support for Obama’s clean energy agenda.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama’s 'Crony-Gate' Scandal Widens — Billions Now Under Scrutiny
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 09:17 PM
 
1,407 posts, read 745,293 times
Reputation: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
Here is a question that I've never been able to figure out about you libertarians, who is your voting base? You can forget about the minority vote and any liberals. The only people I see even being interested in your party is rich white people?
So minorities don't enjoy freedom? Interesting..and matter of fact I do believe we have several folks that voted Obama in 2008 that wanted Ron Paul this year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 05:13 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,887,160 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancap View Post
So minorities don't enjoy freedom? Interesting..and matter of fact I do believe we have several folks that voted Obama in 2008 that wanted Ron Paul this year.
First off, not everyone here is a Libertarian. Which has nothing to do with this topic anyway.
He keeps keeps repeating that along with some bizarre off topic connection to Darwinism. (I think he just likes the word maybe.)

Secondly minorities don't all vote democrat.
If he is referencing Paul, both he and his son are Republicans, not Libertarians.

So not much makes sense about what was posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 10,043,072 times
Reputation: 7456
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55 View Post
Here is a question that I've never been able to figure out about you libertarians, who is your voting base? You can forget about the minority vote and any liberals. The only people I see even being interested in your party is rich white people?
Well, I can assure you, I may be white, but I'm not rich, so way to once again generalize and paint all libertarians with a broad brush!

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Patriots, that have a national sense of identity as to what America used to stand for, liberty.

Shhh claudhopper. You might wake some of the sheeple up from their slumber! Don't ya know liberty is just crazy talk, and that the Constitution is just an outdated document!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 11:54 PM
 
Location: SC
9,038 posts, read 14,283,762 times
Reputation: 3488
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Indeed.
Not to mention the fact that the average life expectancy of newborn in 1850 was a mere 38 years.
In 1900 it was still only 48 and even by 1920 it was still only 56. A big improvement over 1850's 38 but still nothing to crow about by todays' standards (roughly the same as places like Ethiopia and Botswana today).

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Ken
The only thing worse about health and life expectency back then was the infant mortality rate because there were no incubators. The percentage of people that suffered chronic and degenerative diseases and wasted away the last ten years of their lives with a low quality of lives practically bed ridden was next to nil. If they lived past the child hood diseases, they lived until their late 70's; 80's 90's or later and died healthy in their sleep! That kind of health and quality of life is a rarity today -- not the norm like it was back then. If you take out the people who died as infants or toddlers. Don't average in their ages at death and or instead look at the MEAN age which would show the age people were when death was most common, you'd see it was a LOT older than it is today. Our standard of living was NOTHING l.ike Ethiopia. That is THE MOST PREPOSTEROUS THING I'VE EVER HEARD!

LOOK AT THIS LADIE'S HOME JOURNAL ARTICLE FROM BACK THEN AND (GET AN EDUCATION). LOOK AT THE BUNGALOWS YOU COULD GET FOR AS LITTLE AS $5! You'd be lucky to pay $400k for one today average! Back then a loaf of bread was the equivalent of a few cents. Are you KIDDING ME!????! More people lived a higher standard of living than EVER BEFORE in this country's history then.
http://www.historichousecolors.com/d...owBasicLHJ.pdf

Look at the clothes they wore back then. You'd pay thousands of dollars per outfit to dress like that today.

Look at what kids wore. They were hardly your cheap Walmart or JC Penney specials. Rather more like high end Saks Fifth Ave. style and quality. Look at the quality in these kids clothes from the 1870s.Children in Costume History 1870-80 - Victorian Fashions for Girls

Look at them in the early 1900s. Children in C20th Costume History 1900-1910 Edwardian Fashions for Girls

Look at the ladies' hairstyles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1PC...=results_video Those must have taken hours to do. Look at what this person goes through to do one today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N7_7...eature=related Who today has the luxury of taking that kind of time on their hair. The answer of course is FEW because all women today are out slaving away working to help their husbands pay the outrageous mortgage on their cheap cookie home that's nowhere near the quality they would have had in those days on just one income.

Not one of these homes looks anything like your typical Ethiopian would live in. Rather they look closer to what the top 2% in America lives in today. AllPosters.com - The World's Largest Poster and Print Store!

Back then more people had style; class; education; panache; manners; intelligence and it was the norm rather than the exception the way it is today. Just look at this description of a Victorian Era Dinner party:
http://www.angelpig.net/victorian/di...y-conduct.html
It was also the era when Culinary Schools first were established in the United States.
Here's a video of what a Victorian Summer Camp was like and lots of kids of today seem to think it might have been kind of special being a kid back then. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfmfO...=results_video




This was the era when cats first began to be appreciated as pets. Look at the picture of a cat show. http://www.squidoo.com/the-victorian-cat

The big difference between then and now was that luxury was a LOT more accessible to a LOT more people than it is today ---and it all happened because there was NO CENTRAL BANK. The free market determined the purchasing power of the dollar. I'd gladly go back to stress free care free days like most people had back then where their biggest worry was getting ready for afternoon tea.

Need I go on????

BTW that life expectancy argument is so WEAK. Even a mentally challenged person can figure out walking through any cemetery and reading grave stones that people who lived back then lived a LOT longer than 38 years.

Last edited by emilybh; 08-02-2012 at 01:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:25 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top