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.
FWIW, Democrat Phil Gordon was elected Mayor of Phoenix in 2003 and re-elected in 2007. Though the election is nominally non-partisan, it was no secret that he was an active Dem.
FWIW, Democrat Phil Gordon was elected Mayor of Phoenix in 2003 and re-elected in 2007. Though the election is nominally non-partisan, it was no secret that he was an active Dem.
Thats what I mean, then why are we always a red state for presidental elections? Where are all the republicans?
"Thats what I mean, then why are we always a red state for presidental elections? Where are all the republicans?"
Oh, there are plenty of Republicans in the City of Phoenix. There were just enough Democrats and Independents that Gordon managed to pull off a victory in a nominally non-partisan race.
Maricopa County is overwhelmingly Republican. Pima County has a Democrat majority. Other smaller counties vary. Without looking it up, I believe that Napolitano lost in Maricopa County, but she kept that loss narrow enough to win with Tucson/Pima and rural support.
Are some suburbs more Republican than others? Probably, but there is a Republican majority in just about every city in the county. Democrats can still win depending on how districts are drawn. And talented politicians can win in states where their party is not the strongest. Remember, Arizona was won by Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election.
Well, having spent many years living in what you would consider a "liberal" city, I found much entertainment in dodging homeless, stepping over poop and wading through garbage tossed out on the streets. So, in a bizare twist, I do agree with you regarding the boring part. Funny, it is usually the enlightened thinkers, the "openminded' such as you proclaim to be, that resort to name calling, food throwing and window smashing.
This is pretty funny. It's true that the most liberal cities I've lived in also tend to have the most homeless and people living below the poverty level. It seems that even though the liberals talk a great game as far as equal oportunity and compassion for their fellow man, so on and so forth, when it comes down to it they sure aren't too eager by and large to give any of their stuff away or change their own lifestyles for the betterment of mankind or the planet. The truth is that those who identify as Republicans statistically give a far greater overall amount and percentage amount of their incomes to charity than do Democrats, with the wealthiest 10% giving almost 47% of all charitable dollars. Meanwhile, despite the economic hardships facing this country at the moment, it seems that those who invest responsibly and work hard continue to succeed at unprecedented rates (probably because under a Republican administration, their hard work and fruits of their labors aren't being punished via a crushing tax burden at the hands of Democrats. Although I have a feeling that will soon change). Read here for the real story:
Here's the news, liberals: even if you're driving a Prius, you're still driving, you're still polluting and therefore you're still part of the problem. If you're still running electricity in your house, ditto. If you're still consuming food and water, ditto. If you're still walking the planet, breathing the air, throwing your trash out so that it winds up in landfills, and flushing waste, ditto. And if you're not giving anything back, or trying to work on the problem (the only real solutions would be to decrease the global human population via mass suicide or some other means, or to halt all economic growth, modern conveniences and progress altogether and go back to living in caves, but I doubt either of those solutions would be very popular with the libs), then you're part of the problem and a hypocrite to boot.
So although the libs talk a good game, the vast majority don't walk the walk and in fact are just as irresponsible, greedy and selfish as anyone else. The libs by and large statistically give not much to charity, don't come up with real solutions to any real problems (short of taxing the evil "rich" in the name of "fairness", i.e. wealth distribution- as if that solves any of society's problems, helps the economy, or motivates anyone to do much of anything to better their situation, or as if they'd be too eager to give any of their hard-earned stuff away if the tables were turned), while these self-proclaimed "enlightened" among us point fingers at everyone else. How do you spell hypocrite? L-I-B-E-R-A-L.
Last edited by borborygmi; 10-15-2008 at 03:01 PM..
Here's the news, liberals: even if you're driving a Prius, you're still driving, you're still polluting and therefore you're still part of the problem. If you're still running electricity in your house, ditto. If you're still consuming food and water, ditto. If you're still walking the planet, breathing the air, throwing your trash out so that it winds up in landfills, and flushing waste, ditto. And if you're not giving anything back, or trying to work on the problem (the only real solutions would be to decrease the global human population via mass suicide or some other means, or to halt all economic growth, modern conveniences and progress altogether and go back to living in caves, but I doubt either of those solutions would be very popular with the libs), then you're part of the problem and a hypocrite to boot.
So although the libs talk a good game, the vast majority don't walk the walk and in fact are just as irresponsible, greedy and selfish as anyone else. The libs by and large statistically give not much to charity, don't come up with real solutions to any real problems (short of taxing the evil "rich" in the name of "fairness", i.e. wealth distribution- as if that solves any of society's problems, helps the economy, or motivates anyone to do much of anything to better their situation, or as if they'd be too eager to give any of their hard-earned stuff away if the tables were turned), while these self-proclaimed "enlightened" among us point fingers at everyone else. How do you spell hypocrite? L-I-B-E-R-A-L.
I took the first paragraph out because I do not necessarily dispute what you said concerning charitable donations and political preference. The line about 10% representing 47% of donations sounds nifty, but really does not impress all that much. Perhaps looking at donation amount relative to income, then throwing in political preference might make for a more interesting, and perhaps valid (in the statistical sense of the term) measure.
Indeed, by driving a prius, one is still contributing to pollution and everything else, but is a step in the right direction. Think about it, if one million people with one million cars that got one mile higher MPG than the car they currently own, that's one million gallons of gas saved. How many barrels of oil is that? Apply that idea to the actual number of cars and that is a fairly large amount of oil that is not being burned up and contributing to the dreaded liberal conspiracy of global warming. Small changes spread out over large areas add up. Apply the same idea to a running faucet while you are brushing your teeth. Assume a rough figure (X) is wasted while leaving the faucet open during your average time brushing your teeth (say one minute). Close the faucet, brush, turn back on, rinse, and turn it back off. You will have saved X amount of water. A million people do that, and you have X multiplied by a million. This would represent a vast improvement and a step in the right direction.
Your notion that only by throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the only way anyone can avoid the horrible stink of hypocrisy is severely limited in its thoughtfulness. This all or nothing mentality does remarkable damage, regardless of origin.
I wonder, is every single last tax (voluntary or otherwise) bad?
Last edited by Tailofdogma; 10-15-2008 at 08:25 PM..
Reason: clarity
Indeed, by driving a prius, one is still contributing to pollution and everything else, but is a step in the right direction. Think about it, if one million people with one million cars that got one mile higher MPG than the car they currently own, that's one million gallons of gas saved. How many barrels of oil is that? Apply that idea to the actual number of cars and that is a fairly large amount of oil that is not being burned up and contributing to the dreaded liberal conspiracy of global warming. Small changes spread out over large areas add up. Apply the same idea to a running faucet while you are brushing your teeth. Assume a rough figure (X) is wasted while leaving the faucet open during your average time brushing your teeth (say one minute). Close the faucet, brush, turn back on, rinse, and turn it back off. You will have saved X amount of water. A million people do that, and you have X multiplied by a million. This would represent a vast improvement and a step in the right direction.
Your notion that only by throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the only way anyone can avoid the horrible stink of hypocrisy is severely limited in its thoughtfulness. This all or nothing mentality does remarkable damage, regardless of origin.
I wonder, is every single last tax (voluntary or otherwise) bad?
Issue number one: carbon-based gases produced as byproducts of copmbustion have never been proven to cause or to contribute to global warming, assuming such a thing does exist. Carbon emissions as the theoretical cause of g.w. is a myth propagated by proponents of the g.w. theory which has no substantial proven basis. But that's neither here nor there and it's a discussion for another time.
My second point cuts to the real gist of your argument, which is this: in my lifetime (I'm only in my early thirties), the population of the planet has doubled. It will double again by the time I'm in my forties. And, assuming there isn't a cataclysmic event that puts a stop to that population growth, it's fair to assume that the population will double again and again before my death. The bulk of this population growth is happening in developing countries, rising economies and third-world countries, the governments and leaders of which couldn't care less about our environmental concerns or our efforts to cut pollution. They're certainly not going to curb their economic growth or prosperity to contribute to the "greater good" of helping the environment. Some estimates I've read have the total carbon emissions produced in China and India surpassing the levels produced by the U.S., skyrocketing past it and doubling it as soon as early next decade. So, even if you could theoretically get every single person in this country and in all other first-world Western countries, even mandated it by law, to cut down on our carbon emissions to the point of zero, what would you solve? Answer: nothing. To rebuke your point above, it's actually not a step toward anything if millions of people in western countries are the only ones doing it in a world populated by billions who aren't interested in participating in said environmental causes and aren't ever going to be, if it impacts their economies negatively. Which it would.
China, India and other developing economies in South America and elsewhere will continue to create more pollution and do more environmental harm than we can ever repair or reverse despite every effort on our behalf to the contrary, even if every single one of us in this country got on board with aggressive pro-environmental lifestyle changes. You can shout about environmental conservation all day, but the truth is that you're wasting your breath and your time. And I'm wasting mine writing this.
Last edited by borborygmi; 10-16-2008 at 06:02 PM..
Well you've opened the can of worms, but I'll keep it brief.
Quote:
Issue number one: carbon-based gases produced as byproducts of copmbustion have never been proven to cause or to contribute to global warming, assuming such a thing does exist. Carbon emissions as the theoretical cause of g.w. is a myth propagated by proponents of the g.w. theory which has no substantial proven basis. But that's neither here nor there and it's a discussion for another time.
In all fairness I can cite an article such as this one to support your claim, but like so many who refuse to admit any degree of human attribution to global climate change, the author has questionablecredentials.
Now that's just a quick search. If you want studies, I will give them to you, but if you are actually interested in the facts you should be able to find them yourself.
And unrelated to the above, I don't think Phoenix feels like the Republican National Convention. Even if it did, I've known plenty of Republicans who concur with the current analysis and evidence regarding the role of human influence in climate change; a certain Arizonan presidential candidate (who I do have issues with this year) among them.
Your second point only compounds your notion of "wasted time", btw. If developed western countries, all significant consumers in the world, changed their habits and reflected it in their purchases and awareness of the source of their goods, they would most certainly have an impact on nations such as China and India. Your argument also fails to take into account the Chinese cultural trait of placing the common good above that of an individual. In fact, your second point oversimplifies the entire argument to a simple numbers game, without taking into account numerous other factors. Culture, diplomacy, trade, technology...in a globalized world, which is what we are in, all these elements increase our dependency on one another daily. We can push globalization into a force for good, or let it tear us apart and consume us as a species.
I digress, and will be amazed if my post survives moderation =)
For everybody who thinks Conservative Arizona is boring, then get out of here and go live in very liberal San Francisco, you don't have to stay here.
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.
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.
