Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Gun Control
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Gun Control
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM (858 Views)
IUCOLTFAN May 9 2013, 03:01 PM Post #91
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 02:57 PM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 02:33 PM
I definitely agree that the candidates are getting worse and worse. But I feel like more people know more about policy positions now than ever before simply due to the access to information the internet has created...for better or worse. Just 50 years ago coverage was limited to print media and occasional TV ads.

Now, you can not escape the info (whether it be substantive or not).

br
the information is definitely more readily available, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that more people are taking the time to go and get it.
+1
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 9 2013, 04:08 PM Post #92
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
eelbor
May 9 2013, 12:44 PM
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 11:13 AM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 10:48 AM
How about this? Put some compelling and electable candidates on the ballot.

br
brian, clearly that has very very very little to do with it. Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history and he was re-elected. The voters aren't really that educated on the candidates thus quality isn't getting elected.
You have to admit Aaron is right on this one Brian. We have had arguably the worst two presidents ever back to back, and they were both granted a second term.
And what were the alternatives to them?

The incredibly uncharismatic Al Gore followed by vanilla John Kerry, followed up by an eight years too late John McCain with an imbecile as a running mate and finally an incredibly out of touch Mitt Romney whose base didn't even really care for him.

If a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had been running in 2000, 2004, 2008 or 2012, they would have wiped the mat with them.

In 2000, the democrats only true option was Al Gore. John Kerry was a mistake, but they quickly learned from that in what it takes to win an election. The republicans did not learn a damn thing from the 2008 election.

You have to keep in mind that in 2000 and 2004, Bush eeked out victores; in 2008 and 2012, Obama won landslides. Unless the republicans learn from their recent past, that is a trend worth noting. If they continue to run guys who look like they belong on dollar bills, they are going to be losing the presidency.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor May 9 2013, 04:17 PM Post #93
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 04:08 PM
eelbor
May 9 2013, 12:44 PM
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 11:13 AM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 10:48 AM
How about this? Put some compelling and electable candidates on the ballot.

br
brian, clearly that has very very very little to do with it. Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history and he was re-elected. The voters aren't really that educated on the candidates thus quality isn't getting elected.
You have to admit Aaron is right on this one Brian. We have had arguably the worst two presidents ever back to back, and they were both granted a second term.
And what were the alternatives to them?

The incredibly uncharismatic Al Gore followed by vanilla John Kerry, followed up by an eight years too late John McCain with an imbecile as a running mate and finally an incredibly out of touch Mitt Romney whose base didn't even really care for him.

If a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had been running in 2000, 2004, 2008 or 2012, they would have wiped the mat with them.

In 2000, the democrats only true option was Al Gore. John Kerry was a mistake, but they quickly learned from that in what it takes to win an election. The republicans did not learn a damn thing from the 2008 election.

You have to keep in mind that in 2000 and 2004, Bush eeked out victores; in 2008 and 2012, Obama won landslides. Unless the republicans learn from their recent past, that is a trend worth noting. If they continue to run guys who look like they belong on dollar bills, they are going to be losing the presidency.
Exactly that. The only people that are interested in the presidency are in it for the power. It is probably the most underpaid job in the world.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 9 2013, 04:21 PM Post #94
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 02:57 PM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 02:33 PM
I definitely agree that the candidates are getting worse and worse. But I feel like more people know more about policy positions now than ever before simply due to the access to information the internet has created...for better or worse. Just 50 years ago coverage was limited to print media and occasional TV ads.

Now, you can not escape the info (whether it be substantive or not).

br
the information is definitely more readily available, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that more people are taking the time to go and get it.
I am going to call hogwash on that. While you may not agree with the conclusions that people have on the information they receive, the fact that the information wasn't available to them except in very limited forms most certainly would not lead one to the conclusion that people have become less informed.

We knew a hell of a lot more about Bill Clinton's blow job than we knew people in the 60's did about JFK's affairs. When he died, the general public would have told you that the Kennedys were the poster family for what a perfect family was.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 9 2013, 04:23 PM Post #95
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
eelbor
May 9 2013, 04:17 PM
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 04:08 PM
eelbor
May 9 2013, 12:44 PM
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 11:13 AM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 10:48 AM
How about this? Put some compelling and electable candidates on the ballot.

br
brian, clearly that has very very very little to do with it. Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history and he was re-elected. The voters aren't really that educated on the candidates thus quality isn't getting elected.
You have to admit Aaron is right on this one Brian. We have had arguably the worst two presidents ever back to back, and they were both granted a second term.
And what were the alternatives to them?

The incredibly uncharismatic Al Gore followed by vanilla John Kerry, followed up by an eight years too late John McCain with an imbecile as a running mate and finally an incredibly out of touch Mitt Romney whose base didn't even really care for him.

If a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had been running in 2000, 2004, 2008 or 2012, they would have wiped the mat with them.

In 2000, the democrats only true option was Al Gore. John Kerry was a mistake, but they quickly learned from that in what it takes to win an election. The republicans did not learn a damn thing from the 2008 election.

You have to keep in mind that in 2000 and 2004, Bush eeked out victores; in 2008 and 2012, Obama won landslides. Unless the republicans learn from their recent past, that is a trend worth noting. If they continue to run guys who look like they belong on dollar bills, they are going to be losing the presidency.
Exactly that. The only people that are interested in the presidency are in it for the power. It is probably the most underpaid job in the world.
People who become president aren't in for the immediate money. And even if they are in for money post-presidency, that still isn't going to be their top reason, IMO.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 9 2013, 04:24 PM Post #96
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 02:57 PM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 02:33 PM
I definitely agree that the candidates are getting worse and worse. But I feel like more people know more about policy positions now than ever before simply due to the access to information the internet has created...for better or worse. Just 50 years ago coverage was limited to print media and occasional TV ads.

Now, you can not escape the info (whether it be substantive or not).

br
the information is definitely more readily available, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that more people are taking the time to go and get it.
No doubt there is a wealth of info available, but people are too busy texting and watching reality TV shows. Sad, but true.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 9 2013, 04:26 PM Post #97
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
eelbor
May 9 2013, 04:17 PM
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 04:08 PM
eelbor
May 9 2013, 12:44 PM
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 11:13 AM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 10:48 AM
How about this? Put some compelling and electable candidates on the ballot.

br
brian, clearly that has very very very little to do with it. Obama is one of the worst Presidents in American history and he was re-elected. The voters aren't really that educated on the candidates thus quality isn't getting elected.
You have to admit Aaron is right on this one Brian. We have had arguably the worst two presidents ever back to back, and they were both granted a second term.
And what were the alternatives to them?

The incredibly uncharismatic Al Gore followed by vanilla John Kerry, followed up by an eight years too late John McCain with an imbecile as a running mate and finally an incredibly out of touch Mitt Romney whose base didn't even really care for him.

If a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had been running in 2000, 2004, 2008 or 2012, they would have wiped the mat with them.

In 2000, the democrats only true option was Al Gore. John Kerry was a mistake, but they quickly learned from that in what it takes to win an election. The republicans did not learn a damn thing from the 2008 election.

You have to keep in mind that in 2000 and 2004, Bush eeked out victores; in 2008 and 2012, Obama won landslides. Unless the republicans learn from their recent past, that is a trend worth noting. If they continue to run guys who look like they belong on dollar bills, they are going to be losing the presidency.
Exactly that. The only people that are interested in the presidency are in it for the power. It is probably the most underpaid job in the world.
.....while you are in office.

These people's wealth seems to grow vastly during the backsides of their "careers"....

The endless pay and healthcare for life are pretty good perks. These guys get pocket change for life. Most use the free world travel perk for themselves and their families to the extreme too....

Considering the amount of actual work these guys do and the lifelong benefits after....it's a pretty cushy gig.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 9 2013, 04:35 PM Post #98
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 04:21 PM
Mr Gray
May 9 2013, 02:57 PM
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 02:33 PM
I definitely agree that the candidates are getting worse and worse. But I feel like more people know more about policy positions now than ever before simply due to the access to information the internet has created...for better or worse. Just 50 years ago coverage was limited to print media and occasional TV ads.

Now, you can not escape the info (whether it be substantive or not).

br
the information is definitely more readily available, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that more people are taking the time to go and get it.
I am going to call hogwash on that. While you may not agree with the conclusions that people have on the information they receive, the fact that the information wasn't available to them except in very limited forms most certainly would not lead one to the conclusion that people have become less informed.

We knew a hell of a lot more about Bill Clinton's blow job than we knew people in the 60's did about JFK's affairs. When he died, the general public would have told you that the Kennedys were the poster family for what a perfect family was.
Just because we have cable and Internet does not mean more people care about politics. The same types of people follow and care about politics now as in the 60's. most people really don't give a shit, cable and Internet haven't changed that. It may have got a few more people interested but by percentage of population the increase is probably very minimal, IMO.

Many people you know use the net and watch cable tv all the time yet couldn't tell you the first thing about current politics or events in the world. They simply don't care.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 9 2013, 05:06 PM Post #99
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 9 2013, 05:35 PM Post #100
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
The next time you're out in public, notice all of the people memorized by their phones. My bet is they aren't reading political commentary.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 9 2013, 05:43 PM Post #101
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
HoosierLars
May 9 2013, 05:35 PM
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
The next time you're out in public, notice all of the people memorized by their phones. My bet is they aren't reading political commentary.
Yes, but it's not like before phones people were walking around having deep political discourse. They were just walking.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 9 2013, 05:47 PM Post #102
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
sirbrianwilson
May 9 2013, 05:43 PM
HoosierLars
May 9 2013, 05:35 PM
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
The next time you're out in public, notice all of the people memorized by their phones. My bet is they aren't reading political commentary.
Yes, but it's not like before phones people were walking around having deep political discourse. They were just walking.

br
People used to regularly watch the national and local news, and it wasn't overly biased. This gave people a reasonable overview of what was really happening. Now with all of the polarization, Joe Sixpack doesn't know what to watch, and doesn't trust anyone too much.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars May 9 2013, 05:48 PM Post #103
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.
This is why liberals have eventually taken over the MSM. Reporters who are conservative and don't see a place for big government aren't interested in becoming political commentators. This also explains why there aren't many anorexic hosts on the Food Network.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 10 2013, 05:31 AM Post #104
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
The difference, IMO, is not that there are more politically uneducated and non caring people, but that more of them are now voting. Pop culture reaches those types of people very well and has placed more importance on voting but not necessarily on understanding the issues.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 10 2013, 06:29 AM Post #105
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
May 10 2013, 05:31 AM
brumdog44
May 9 2013, 05:06 PM
And back in the 60s when government was smaller, even less people cared because it was a smaller part of their life.

Using the claim that less people are knowledgeable about politics despite there being more information easily and readibly available is counterintuitive. Other than that being based on conjecture, I see no substance to it.
The difference, IMO, is not that there are more politically uneducated and non caring people, but that more of them are now voting. Pop culture reaches those types of people very well and has placed more importance on voting but not necessarily on understanding the issues.
I respectfully disagree. I think as people we romanticize the past.

Remember that JFK was losing to Nixon up until the first debate...and JFK overtook him because of how 'sweaty and old' looked on camera.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:55 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy