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.
No, the BIG difference is some folks accept reality, abstinence would surely be best for a 14 year old but hundreds of years of reality would tell anyone with open eyes that it's not always the case.
The poster was criticizing an abstience is best campaign. . . So you agree it is "best." So why would it be criticized?
Hmm, could it be because it was initiated by conservatives? Enough of a reason for some.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky1
The poster was criticizing an abstience is best campaign. . . So you agree it is "best." So why would it be criticized?
Hmm, could it be because it was initiated by conservatives? Enough of a reason for some.
Well, it's a matter of interpretation. I didn't take it to be critical of the policy per se which I do believe is best but rather its distance from the 'real world'.
well it didnt take long for the subject to get changed to the bad republicans. bottom line of this thread is that all the pissing and moaning about republicans as the party of the rich is nonsense, if you read the article the study shows that the wealthiest districts in the country are represented by Democrats.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
well it didnt take long for the subject to get changed to the bad republicans. bottom line of this thread is that all the pissing and moaning about republicans as the party of the rich is nonsense, if you read the article the study shows that the wealthiest districts in the country are represented by Democrats.
And the unmentioned bottom line is how many middle-class and poor districts are also represented by democrats? It stands to reason that with a Democratic majority in Congress that a majority of districts would be represented by Democrats. Seems to me it's really a non-issue.
Ah...Democrats. The pied pipers of socialist doctrine. In the very same mode of the old USSR. The US Govt. is a big employer. All govt. taken togeather, local, state, fed. is a -real big employer.
Give me a break. ENTIRE economies of towns throughout the dead economic zones in this country are literally propped up by military bases, prisons, and defense contractor industries. ALL of it bought and paid for by federal tax dollars.
OIL is secured by federal tax dollars, so that the energy companies, their executives and shareholders can get rich while young men and women die to protect that company's resources. Meanwhile, if the US DIDN'T "secure oil," its inherent dangerousness of that commodity would make it unappealing in the market and there would be real incentive for alternative fuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodsam
Democrats support that concept, of we are all working togeather to help ourselves. We will help ourselves more if we promise to give you a little to preserve us a lot.
As opposed to that great lie that selfish self-interest economically benefits everyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodsam
I vote that we should all enter into a class action suit against federal legislators removing their retirement benifits except for the modest sums afforded the lowest rung of the social security system. I suspect we would be amazed at how much ear marked money came flowing back into the social security system to help save their benifits. It is so transparent as to be laughable and yet we seem not to want to challenge them. I'll sign the petition Mr. Democrat if you'll get it started. Come on, be what you say you are, a representative of the little man.
Actually, John Edwards says he would like to strip away Congress' health insurance benefits if they don't do anything about the affordability of healthcare in this country. While he of course can't do that constitutionally, let's ask a question:
If Congress was 90% Democratically controlled with a Democratic President, would we, or would we not, have universal healthcare passed in this country?
There is one thing that has ALWAYS stood in the way of any sort of reform for the middle and lower classes: REPUBLICANS who claim it will "hurt profi.... err.... um.... "small business!"
well it didnt take long for the subject to get changed to the bad republicans. bottom line of this thread is that all the pissing and moaning about republicans as the party of the rich is nonsense, if you read the article the study shows that the wealthiest districts in the country are represented by Democrats.
People call Republicans "the party of the rich" because they represent the INTERESTS of the rich and corporate interests, despite who their constituency is.
Why is it hard to fathom that there are actually rich people out there who would favor progressive economic policies? Could it be that SOME rich people can recognize that their economic and social well being is interconnected to that of the lower classes? Or is economic myopia an infliction of the conservative rich, who quite literally work to "conserve" their economic status?
And the unmentioned bottom line is how many middle-class and poor districts are also represented by democrats? It stands to reason that with a Democratic majority in Congress that a majority of districts would be represented by Democrats. Seems to me it's really a non-issue.
well of course its a non issue burdell, it flys in the face of conventional liberal wisdom! but you are not accurate about who represents the middle class.......Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."
People call Republicans "the party of the rich" because they represent the INTERESTS of the rich and corporate interests, despite who their constituency is.
Why is it hard to fathom that there are actually rich people out there who would favor progressive economic policies? Could it be that SOME rich people can recognize that their economic and social well being is interconnected to that of the lower classes? Or is economic myopia an infliction of the conservative rich, who quite literally work to "conserve" their economic status?
Au contraire; Republicans favor personal responsibility, and the opportunity for all to succeed. Conversely, the Democrats want the masses to believe they must rely on them, thus securing their votes.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
well of course its a non issue burdell, it flys in the face of conventional liberal wisdom! but you are not accurate about who represents the middle class.......Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."
" the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts" in no way equates to the vast majority of middle-class districts being represented by unabashed conservatives. What are you trying to say?
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.
