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.
Being a conservative and voting that way doesn't necessarily equate to being religious. I'm an atheist and strong supporter of evolution, but I also believe in small government with low taxes and a balanced budget, strong national security and military, but also have no problem with gay marriage, pro-choice, and am quite socially tolerant of anyone who doesn't try and force themselves on me (which usually leaves out the religious types). I left the Democrat party after the 2000 election and 9/11 when they started to trot out the conspiracy theories and started demonizing the President.
I am really more of a Libertarian than a Republican, so realize that not all conservatives are religious hard liners.
Agreed. I have never considered myself neither D or R, but I do tend to follow a Libertarian viewpoint now. I started out being more "blue", and as I get older (40ish) I tend to be more "red". 9/11 was sort of my turning point as well.
One term that makes my skin crawl is "Evangelical Christian". Are there cities out there where these people live exclusively? Seriously, the way the media describes them you would think they were this powerhouse group that looms and rules the country and they are everywhere. I am a Christian and do attend church - not the mega variety - but I do not consider myself evangelical my any means.
Here's one yankee (and my wife too) that moved south to get away from the so-called Blue politics. We had enough of being represented by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and the rest of the ultra-liberal Massachusetts congressional delegation, not to mention the ultra-PC local politics.
I would suspect (but no statistics to prove) that many of the transplants share our outlook and are more likely Repulican or Libertarian (as am I). The Democrats and liberals who agree with the political thought in the northeast probably would never move to GA. To them, the south is everything they loathe, and they hear banjo music and imagine kids in schools with bare feet and rebel flags.
Well, here's another yankee that shares your views. It was a relief to get away from all of the bleeding hearts when I moved here. I strongly believe that the best thing that could happen to the citizens of the US is if the government down-sized and went back to its original role of protecting our freedom and let let the individuals worry about their own day to day lives without expecting the gov't to take care of them. How did we allow ourselves to become such a nation of cry-babies?
First of all, the Dems were not spreading conspiracy theories about Bush planning 9/11. Instead, some said that they thought that he ignored reports that were presented to him about Al Qaeda planning an attack within the US. Later, Condi Rice verified this when she testified at the 9/11 hearings that she receieved a report entitled "Al Qaeda Planning an Attack within the United States". Don't blame the Dems on that one. The Bushies admitted their mistake.
Second of all, this small government stuff is tired and worn out. This "small government" dogma has us at the point where we can't afford to give prompt relief to cities that have been wiped out by natural disasters, we can't supply our troops with the proper armor and equipment they need during war, we can't update our infrastructure and have fallen way behind our European and Asian counterparts, and our Federal government keeps passing unfunded mandates to the state and local levels. Hell, I'm inclined to believe that some people would forgo wiping their own asses out of fear of paying a sales tax when they buy toilet paper! Forget this stupid, childish "small government vs. big government" nitpicky stuff. That's so Baby-boomer generation. I can't wait til the younger generation takes the reins of this country and provides answers instead of fluff and propaganda!
Third of all, this thread has gotten to the point where it should be moved to the "Politics" forum.
Last edited by south-to-west; 02-01-2008 at 03:15 PM..
Being a conservative and voting that way doesn't necessarily equate to being religious. I'm an atheist and strong supporter of evolution, but I also believe in small government with low taxes and a balanced budget, strong national security and military, but also have no problem with gay marriage, pro-choice, and am quite socially tolerant of anyone who doesn't try and force themselves on me (which usually leaves out the religious types).
Voting for Republicans doesn't really make sense for a libertarian. They have proven over and over again that for all they say about fiscal conservatism and small government, they aren't really doing it. The democrat presidents have actually spent less money, and on more useful things, for all of the past 80 years.
All politicians want to spend money, the question is on what. Republicans want to spend it on tax cuts to rich people who don't need them while they run up an enormous deficit on questionable wars, Democrats on helping the poor people in this country who can't afford healthcare or good education while actually paying for the services they offer instead of making us forever indebted to the rest of the world.
Re: "When did we become a nation of crybabies?" We are not a nation of crybabies but believe it or not many people in this nation are actually born very poor and don't have the opportunities that most Americans in their upper-middle-class suburban bubbles have.
We already have by far the lowest taxes in the world, why should someone making $millions per year not pay 1% more if it will save lives and give the millions of poor in this country a chance to be educated, healthy, and contribute and improve the nation and economy far more than rich people will do with that extra $10,000 dollars towards their latest mansion or hummer.
Voting for Republicans doesn't really make sense for a libertarian. They have proven over and over again that for all they say about fiscal conservatism and small government, they aren't really doing it. The democrat presidents have actually spent less money, and on more useful things, for all of the past 80 years.
All politicians want to spend money, the question is on what. Republicans want to spend it on tax cuts to rich people who don't need them while they run up an enormous deficit on questionable wars, Democrats on helping the poor people in this country who can't afford healthcare or good education while actually paying for the services they offer instead of making us forever indebted to the rest of the world.
Re: "When did we become a nation of crybabies?" We are not a nation of crybabies but believe it or not many people in this nation are actually born very poor and don't have the opportunities that most Americans in their upper-middle-class suburban bubbles have.
We already have by far the lowest taxes in the world, why should someone making $millions per year not pay 1% more if it will save lives and give the millions of poor in this country a chance to be educated, healthy, and contribute and improve the nation and economy far more than rich people will do with that extra $10,000 dollars towards their latest mansion or hummer.
Well, I agree that Pres. Bush and the prior Republican Congresses have done a poor job of restraining spending. The only mitigating factor is the war, but even given that, they spend like drunk sailors on leave. Having said all that, the Democrats are worse, and I would almost always take a Republican over a Democrat. At least the Republican will usually try and hold taxes and defend the nation. Look at New Orleans after Katrina...both parties couldn't resist the temptation to give away tax dollars like candy and make political hey over who "cared more". Meanwhile, billions were pissed away.
As for the old cliche and class warfare anthem about "rich people", it's always cool to spend someone else's money when they're the ones who earned it. What makes anyone more deserving of my money than me? I work hard and earn my money and paid nearly $45,000 in just federal income tax this year (it's very fresh in my mind having just calculated it). I support a family of 5 on my income. I resent the notion that someone else "deserves" the fruit of my labor more than I do. Redistribution of wealth to where the government thinks it should go is a solidly Democrat idea. Just listen to Billary.
This notion is rediculous that it's "unfair" that people who go to school, sacrifice, work hard, and are rewarded for that sacrifice have no right to enjoy that reward. Is it fair that someone who's parents didn't care about them, who dropped out of school and had a kid at 16 years old should be more entitled to my money because of the poor choices they made? Personal responsibility and hard work has no more place in this country it seems. It's all about what can the government give me.
EDIT: Oh, and BTW, I don't own a hummer or a mansion, and I have 3 kids to put through college, starting in 4 years, so yeah, I need that "extra 10,000 dollars". if you're so generous then you pony up your own money, but I think 45 large to the feds and quite a few bills to the state is enough for me.
but I also believe in small government with low taxes and a balanced budget, strong national security and military
Most republicans are no more small government and fiscal conservatives than dems now and republicans are big spenders, just on different things. Republicans put more money into national defense whereas democrats put money into social venues. When it comes to business spending, they both like to spur growth however republicans are more laissez-faire whereas democrats generally support unions more. Another dividing line is on social issues such as religion, marriage, privacy rights etc where republicans appear more pro-control than democrats. Democrats also spend more on education. Regan-ish republicans also believe in trickle-down economics -- relying on wealthy to donate money whereas democrats tend to want to tax the wealthy higher and have the government put the money into social security, government-sponsored health care, and other social programs.
Not wanting to turn this into a debate on democrat vs republican instead of what political affect metro ATL has on whether Georgia may become a blue state...
I think big cities and densely populated areas are generally more pro-democrat for the following two reasons:
1) Big cities require more on oversight and social programs than rural America.
2) Metropolitan areas are generally less socially conservative.
Therefore, I believe that Atlanta can have a major affect on the political scene of Georgia, though there's still a lot of people in Georgia outside of the inner metro area, so will Atlanta ever tip the scales enough? (Like NYC does in NY)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeminiGal
One term that makes my skin crawl is "Evangelical Christian". Are there cities out there where these people live exclusively?
Evangelicals, in this context, can be considered a nicer way of saying "fundamentalist" or extremist. Look for any town with a church that's bigger than a conference center and a smaller population than the number of people that can fit in the church. They are a powerhouse in the sense that they have a LOT of money (donated by large numbers of fundamentalists) and the church members will do anything the church tells them to do They will fervently try to convert you.
The most incompetent group of people in national security matters are Republicans. It's simply amazing how incompetent they are.
And for decades they talked about fiscal responsiblity and they are in fact the opposite of it. All while giving away billions of tax payer money to corporations and the highest tax brackets at the expense of millions and millions of hard working middle and lower income workers.
Yes, spending other peoples' money indeed.
And the contempt the right wing has for the Constitution is quite amazing. One need not beyond this primary season to hear the warped theocratic rhetoric of Romney and Huckabee.
What makes anyone more deserving of my money than me?
Hey, look, not everyone who is willing to vote for higher taxes to benefit the less fortunate in life is either (1) living in mom and dad's basement, (2) a potentical beneficiary of said taxes, or (3) Hollywood elite.
Some of us pay the same chunk of change you did and we're still of the mindset that we SHOULD allow the government to assist the poor.
"Personal responsibility and hard work" don't always pull people out of quagmires. And that catchphrase is an easy way to dismiss people who have not visibly succeeded.
Lot's of people work hard and take personal responsibility for their lives and still dont' make enough money to stay off welfare. I know because my husband grew up in poverty after his dad ran off. His mom worked hard to get by and could not without assistance. However, because of that assistance my husband has had the financial resources necessary to go to college and later grad school.
However, all this being said...your gripe should be directed at how our tax system puts the burden of the taxes on the middle class, which is you and me. The wealthy (and I'm not talking about people who make 500K a year) pay virtually nothing in relation to their necessary expenditures. The middle class spends just about 100% of it's income every year just to live, including providing for retirement.
I think your frustration with your taxes is understandable. I think, however, that you are misdirecting it.
Hey, look, not everyone who is willing to vote for higher taxes to benefit the less fortunate in life....
Many people are "less fortunate" because of the conscious choices that they make, and plenty of people like me pay a HUGE share of our incomes for all of the things that government does. To some, no matter how much someone like me pays in taxes, it will never be "ENOUGH" to them. To some, the only acceptable solution would be to confiscate wealth and distribute to those who are "less fortunate" to achieve some kind of socialist equality.
I'm not saying you or everyone believes this, but plenty do, and some believe to varying degrees. Success is looked at as bad, while lack of success is excused and treated as some happenstance that individuals had no control over. Not everyone can be successful, but everyone can make the effort. If you drop out of school, have kids at 16 years old, become an addict, or whatever your lack of fortune is caused by, it doesn't fall on me to make it all better.
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.
They will fervently try to convert you.
