U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2012, 04:50 PM
 
8,923 posts, read 5,027,255 times
Reputation: 8132

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Hilarious how the leftist fanatics can make a six-page-long (and counting!) thread out of a couple of complete lies.
Hows that so surprising? Based off your history of posts, betcha could write a whole book of them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Maryland
628 posts, read 893,492 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
Well, you need to factor in abortion rates. I made a list of pregnancy rate per 1000 women between 15-17 for famous blue and red states.

Red States:
Utah: 24
Alaska: 29
Louisiana: 36
Alabama: 40
Texas: 50


Blue States:
Illinois: 40
California: 42
New York: 47
New Mexico: 58
DC: 113

It does not seem like blue states have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
Why not 15-19? Why not all the states?

DC isn't really a state; it's a city with the attendant urban issues.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 09:59 PM
 
4,113 posts, read 3,307,726 times
Reputation: 2093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joykins View Post
Why not 15-19? Why not all the states?

DC isn't really a state; it's a city with the attendant urban issues.
Cause I am too lazy to list all of the states. It is not an electronic source that I can copy and paste. I gave the source, you can go and look at it.

I also didn't include 18-19. because some people believe that is an acceptable age to get kids. Hence, I looked at 15-17, but if you want to know 15-19 the data is in my source. I have feeling it is not very different.

Last edited by Camlon; 09-05-2012 at 10:24 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Maryland
628 posts, read 893,492 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
Cause I am too lazy to list all of the states. It is not an electronic source that I can copy and paste. I gave the source, you can go and look at it.

I also didn't include 18-19. because some people believe that is an acceptable age to get kids. Hence, I looked at 15-17, but if you want to know 15-19 the data is in my source. I have feeling it is not very different.
I asked only because the phrase was "teenage" which would be 15-19 for demographers, although in reality it probably should be 13-19.

I started to type the data into excel but I got bored. the rankings are all over the map. It's also unclear to me how to assign each state a category of red or blue--there are some obvious ones but there are a lot of borderline ones as well (Iowa, for example, or Ohio).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 04:47 AM
 
Location: Texas
34,587 posts, read 14,630,301 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Premise 1: Conservatism is defined as the relative support of tradition, of the status quo and opposition to change, while liberalism is opposition to the status quo and support of change.

Premise 2: Democrats were not always liberals, and Republicans were not always conservatives.



The silliest threads by the leftist fanatics, always start with lies about the most basic things.

This one is clearly no exception.

Conservative means less government control. Things get redefined. "Cautiously moderate or purposefully low." Raising the budget and government intervention in foreign wars, like Romney and Ryan want, are not conservative principles imo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 05:16 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,384 posts, read 4,824,335 times
Reputation: 2279
You realize of course, that the OP's original post, was an excellent work of fiction.

There are different types of conservatives, as well as different types of liberals, though you make no mention of this and simply lump each group in a single mold.

If you truly believe what you said about the Civil war, then your knowledge of history is severely lacking. Did you know that One of the Articles of the Confederacy outlawed the importation of slaves?

Not sure where you got all the tripe you posted, but it was good fiction, thank you.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: West Egg
2,160 posts, read 1,808,723 times
Reputation: 1291
Conservatives are simply liberals ... a half-century behind the times.

They eventually come around ... long after everyone else has. This is typified by Ronald Reagan's LP rant in 1961 against Social Security (which he labelled 'socialized medicine'):

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then, when he was President:

Quote:
"This bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire."
Ronald Reagan on Social Security

In 22 years, he flips from ominously warning that SS was "dangerous" and "socialized medicine" to vowing an "ironclad commitment" to it.

Par for the course...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:10 PM
 
4,739 posts, read 4,112,676 times
Reputation: 2484
Presidents always "flip" based on who's paying their checks. Reagan was against it when he worked for the people against it, and flipped with republicans.

His speech is drivel of course. Nice to see that what we are seeing today is exactly the same clap trap doomsday crap being used since the '60s.

of course, he was technically correct. Social Security and Medicare are complete wastes and will bankrupt us. But hell - he was lucky right. He had no idea why they were a bad idea.



I will continue to argue that what you need is a pretty good blend of both conservative and liberal to move forward. Conservative evidence, quanatative, facts not hope. . .with liberal ideas. Like Qualative and quanative research.

Because, some unconstrained/liberal ideas aren't always so nice. I would definitely argue that third Reich policies on race and creating a perfect race were technically progressive/liberal.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
Conservatives are simply liberals ... a half-century behind the times.

They eventually come around ... long after everyone else has. This is typified by Ronald Reagan's LP rant in 1961 against Social Security (which he labelled 'socialized medicine'):

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then, when he was President:


Ronald Reagan on Social Security

In 22 years, he flips from ominously warning that SS was "dangerous" and "socialized medicine" to vowing an "ironclad commitment" to it.

Par for the course...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:30 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
66,545 posts, read 48,144,356 times
Reputation: 36717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan View Post
Name one major accomplishment of conservatism.

It's the greatest ca$h cow the MIC could possibly hope for.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-06-2012, 12:34 PM
 
9,849 posts, read 7,711,092 times
Reputation: 3292
I don't need people to define what they want conservatism to be.

What it means these days is smaller government with a lot less government employees. Only long term support for the elderly and disabled. In other words, fiscal conservatism.
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top