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.
It should be no surprise that the most anti-family and pro-abortion president this country has ever seen finds his greatest support among the deliberately childless:
{snip}
OK. We start off by finding out you hate the President and think people should all have more kids. I guess you know best.
Imagine that, you using a religious based website to try to prove your point .
Can't add much here. Naturally, the hater of the President forgets to mention that the recession started during the administration of his predecessor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
I think I said that I didn't agree with the way the issue was framed, that having children was an act of faith in the providence of God to provide for families, and that sometimes God uses public assistance to provide for families in times of necessity.
I also said that the fundamental problem was the decline of traditional marriage and the demise of our natural support network, the extended family, by five generations of declining birthrates.
I disagree. Many children are produced as a result of failing to use birth control. I have never seen any studies to indicate that people have sex primarily to have children, even if Santorum wants to make it the law of the land.
Overall, the most child-free regions were nearly 85% more likely to vote for Obama in 2008. And according to the most recent Gallup survey, they are similarly inclined to vote Democratic today.
The author could have made the point without sounding like a partisan hack. Of course, using religious grounds is also a guarantee, as it has been for crooks for ages. With that in mind, note that this approach is global.
During a visit to India last year, I found a stark contrast in people’s approach to family. The educated, upper middle class urban families are more likely to have 0-2 kids. Visit the rural India, where illiteracy prevails and religiosity trumps realities that is overpopulation in India, it isn’t unusual to find a half dozen or more children per family. This is true of Hindu populace (80% of India’s population) and of Muslims (about 12% of the population). When I spoke with those people, on their views, if these were Americans, they would be “conservatives” here and certainly not democratic voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
If you don't have a solid family foundation, chances decrease on kids growing up to get well paying jobs.
And it takes a "conservative" to oppose any measure that would reduce that effect.
If you don't have a solid family foundation, chances decrease on kids growing up to get well paying jobs.
Baloney.
If there are NO good paying jobs ???????
And there's too many scenarios of children from single parent families who have done just fine....but no matter how "solid" your "foundation" if there are no good paying jobs, society suffers...
Now, let's get back to the TOPIC,
"Misogynist Blames Those Evil Non-Breeding Women For Economic Collapse and Everything Else."
It should be no surprise that the most anti-family and pro-abortion president this country has ever seen finds his greatest support among the deliberately childless:
"Overall, the most child-free regions were nearly 85% more likely to vote for Obama in 2008. And according to the most recent Gallup survey, they are similarly inclined to vote Democratic today.
At the top of the list, with 80% of its women under 45 without children, stands the rock-solid blue District of Columbia. Just behind that taxpayer-financed paradise the six states with the highest percentages — Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Vermont and California — also skew Democratic. In each of these states the percentage of childless women exceeds 55%.
The highest percentage of offspring-free women under 45 can be seen as well in such Democratic metropolitan areas as Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and New York."
Single woman in those areas have been heavily Democrat for years. Also, how is he anti-family when he has a great family himself? Your only somewhat valid point is that he is pro-abortion
The author could have made the point without sounding like a partisan hack.
And upon saying this you then proceeed to sound like a partisan hack:
Quote:
Of course, using religious grounds is also a guarantee, as it has been for crooks for ages. With that in mind, note that this approach is global.
During a visit to India last year, I found a stark contrast in people’s approach to family. The educated, upper middle class urban families are more likely to have 0-2 kids. Visit the rural India, where illiteracy prevails and religiosity trumps realities that is overpopulation in India, it isn’t unusual to find a half dozen or more children per family. This is true of Hindu populace (80% of India’s population) and of Muslims (about 12% of the population). When I spoke with those people, on their views, if these were Americans, they would be “conservatives” here and certainly not democratic voters.
Notice the Liberal's clear contempt for the poor illiterate rubes ending with them being conservative.
Of course, show a poor illiterate single mother in a ghetto in America, who is far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, and the Liberal will do a complete 180 and declare she's a victimized hero struggling against an unjust racist and corporate society.
Flip it to a poor rural white family and the Liberal will be back to commenting on their backward ignorance and clinging to guns and religion.
And upon saying this you then proceeed to sound like a partisan hack
I am a proud partisan hack against partisan hacks of your kind. There, that should make you feel better. And you agree that the author is just that. Thank you.
Quote:
Notice the Liberal's clear contempt for the poor illiterate rubes ending with them being conservative.
Of course, show a poor illiterate single mother in a ghetto in America, who is far more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, and the Liberal will do a complete 180 and declare she's a victimized hero struggling against an unjust racist and corporate society.
Flip it to a poor rural white family and the Liberal will be back to commenting on their backward ignorance and clinging to guns and religion.
I sense no disagreement, only disdain. So...
1- Is there something you disagree with, from my personal experience?
2- Is it untrue that India has an overpopulation issue?
3- Is it untrue that rural and mostly conservative poor families in India are more prone to larger families?
4- Do you believe that what the author implies applied only in the USA?
Yeah but since you can't force people to get married and pop out some kids and stay together in a happy healthy relationships with a good job to support them all....what's the point of this thread?
The government has no role 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.
