• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

For GOP, it's the social issues, stupid

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
(CNN) -- This election is about the economy -- not social issues or other distractions.

At least, that's the mantra we've consistently heard from conservative candidates this election cycle. We heard the same thing during the "tea party election" of 2010.

But it's an odd insistence from an overwhelmingly social conservative Republican party. Because keep in mind, they're not disavowing anti-choice beliefs on abortion or opposition to gay rights or any other deeply held hot-button issues. They just don't want to discuss them loudly in an election year.
Anti-choice? Okay. We'll call you guys pro-infanticide. And you guys aren't disavowing your pro-infanticide beliefs either.

In 2011, 24 states passed a record 92 restrictions on abortion, including mandatory ultrasound legislation, waiting periods, insurance restrictions, and abortion bans after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The pace continued in 2012.
Good work. The work of death is not easily suspended.

Likewise, when Republicans took control of the North Carolina state legislature, one of the first referendums they put on the ballot was a bid to ban same-sex marriages. It passed handily. In Iowa, three judges who ruled same-sex marriage was constitutional found themselves kicked out of office in 2010, and another of those judges is being targeted this election cycle, with former presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal adding their voices to the effort.
It seems to me that leftists have little problem with the right until the right actually starts getting its agenda passed. Then suddenly they are extreme.

Exactly right. This is why I don't trust the GOP to not start legislating their morality when they're in the majority.
Choose between the democrats' morality or the republicans', because you're getting one of them.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,645
10,694
136
Anti-choice? Okay. We'll call you guys pro-infanticide. And you guys aren't disavowing your pro-infanticide beliefs either.



Good work. The work of death is not easily suspended.



It seems to me that leftists have little problem with the right until the right actually starts getting its agenda passed. Then suddenly they are extreme.



Choose between the democrats' morality or the republicans', because you're getting one of them.
80% of people argree with the Clinton definition, safe, legal and rare.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
man, i can't trust the dems with my wallet, and i can't trust the repubs with my liberty. . . . .this is why we need to get them out!
 
Jun 7, 2012
67
0
0
A few afterthoughts...

Now ... now ...

I had a staunch Republican tell me in no uncertain terms it was "about the money"!

His example was that our county provides $5,000/year in condoms to the poor. Then he challenged me to justify that.
Both he and I forgot the problem some (many?) Republicans have with personal moral beliefs regarding birth control, family planning, and their desire to dictate their beliefs on OTHERS.

That sounds counter-Constitutional to me. But those folks are there aggressively expressing their demands to control those that believe differently ... for more than 35 years by my count. It seems to be their OBSESSION to control the reproductive rights of ALL citizens.

Does this boarder on a separation of church and state issue?

We also forgot to address the socio-economic impacts, costs, and/or benefits associated with potentially preventable sexually transmitted diseases with the proper use of condoms or not.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Both he and I forgot the problem some (many?) Republicans have with personal moral beliefs regarding birth control, family planning, and their desire to dictate their beliefs on OTHERS.

That sounds counter-Constitutional to me. But those folks are there expressing their demands to control those that believe differently.
And Democrats are demanding that everyone pay for their BC and abortions.

Sounds to me like they are dictating their beliefs on others.

We also forgot to address the socio-economic impacts, costs, and/or benefits associated with potentially preventable sexually transmitted diseases with the proper use of condoms or not.
Or people could try not being sluts?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
It seems to me that leftists have little problem with the right until the right actually starts getting its agenda passed. Then suddenly they are extreme.
The right's agenda is extreme.. just like the left's is.

Choose between the democrats' morality or the republicans', because you're getting one of them.
No. I refuse and reject both of them.

I live for the day when both social conservatives and fiscal liberals find themselves with something in common: little to no political influence/power.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,190
6,239
136
The right's agenda is extreme.. just like the left's is.



No. I refuse and reject both of them.

I live for the day when both social conservatives and fiscal liberals find themselves with something in common: little to no political influence/power.
I can't find anyone running as a fiscal liberal. :hmm:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You want to deny us what is in our nature. It is our nature to seek pleasure. How would you like it if someone tried to deny you pleasure?
To be human is to be able to subvert your nature for your own benefit.

Animals are incapable of controlling their nature.

Are you a human or an animal?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,190
6,239
136
To be human is to be able to subvert your nature for your own benefit.

Animals are incapable of controlling their nature.

Are you a human or an animal?
Abstaining from safe sex has no benefits that I am aware of.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
And Democrats are demanding that everyone pay for their BC and abortions.
Conservatives always seem to get their panties in a twist when they talk about welfare mothers pushing out babies so they can get free checks, and you're one of the worst on the forums about that very issue. Now you're getting your panties in a twist because people are trying to prevent extra babies from being brought into families that can't support them. What's cheaper? A few hundred bucks one time for an abortion, or a few hundred bucks every month in welfare for 18 years? You're pissing and moaning about a handful of change for condoms when the flipside is tens of thousands of dollars to keep a kid fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. Which is more fiscally responsible?

See, here's the thing. You will never get people to stop having sex. It's been tried. A lot. People have been trying to prevent sexual relations for thousands of years, and it has never, ever, ever worked. It hasn't even come close. The Catholic Church ran the world for hundreds of years, and flat out forbade sex outside of marriage; it didn't stop people from doing it. You literally cannot stop people from having sex short of imprisoning everyone and keeping them all isolated from members of the opposite sex (even then, they just start banging each other, as evidenced by the prevalence of prison rape in the American penal system, but as that rarely leads to pregnancy, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion). You will never be able to prevent people from having sex.

So you're going to get poor people fucking. You just will. It's an absolute certainty. And these people might be more interested in buying themselves a sandwich than a box of condoms. With enough fucking, you're probably going to see some pregnancies. These people are already living off our dollar through welfare money, and the kid is just a further expense we're going to have to take on as taxpayers. Wouldn't it be an easier burden on all of us, the taxpayers as well as the poor people who are about to be burdened with a child they can't afford and often don't want, if they were to, say, not get pregnant in the first place? If they were able to have an option that didn't lead to a child being brought into this world that they have absolutely no ability to care for? Something that was cheaper for everyone involved than the cost of rasing a child to the age of 18?

That's true fiscal conservatism. We end up paying for lots of people's mistakes. Maybe paying a whole lot less to keep them from happening in the first place makes more sense.
 
Jun 7, 2012
67
0
0
And Democrats are demanding that everyone pay for their BC and abortions.

Sounds to me like they are dictating their beliefs on others.



Or people could try not being sluts?
Who said anything about "demanding everyone pay for their ... abortions"?

That $5K/year for the condoms (not diaphrams or birth control pills) in question are strictly for the poor population in a county with a total population of over 60k. That $5k would not supply much of the total county population's annual condom consumption.

Condoms seems to make this a MALE issue.

And as pointed out ... avoiding JUST ONE unplanned birth saves at minimum over $90k in public school costs/child born.

So nehalem, IF ... it were your choice, which would you prefer, $5K for the condoms or a minimum $90K (possibly multiples) for public funded public school education/unplanned birth?

Would you please tell us the CORRECT ANSWER based on your value system?


BTW, since you raised the abortion issue, while you are at it ... please tell us if ANY woman in the US is ever required/forced to have an abortion?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Conservatives always seem to get their panties in a twist when they talk about welfare mothers pushing out babies so they can get free checks, and you're one of the worst on the forums about that very issue. Now you're getting your panties in a twist because people are trying to prevent extra babies from being brought into families that can't support them. What's cheaper? A few hundred bucks one time for an abortion, or a few hundred bucks every month in welfare for 18 years? You're pissing and moaning about a handful of change for condoms when the flipside is tens of thousands of dollars to keep a kid fed, clothed, sheltered and educated. Which is more fiscally responsible?
Its even cheaper if instead of paying for it we loan them the money.

See, here's the thing. You will never get people to stop having sex. It's been tried. A lot. People have been trying to prevent sexual relations for thousands of years, and it has never, ever, ever worked. It hasn't even come close. The Catholic Church ran the world for hundreds of years, and flat out forbade sex outside of marriage; it didn't stop people from doing it. You literally cannot stop people from having sex short of imprisoning everyone and keeping them all isolated from members of the opposite sex (even then, they just start banging each other, as evidenced by the prevalence of prison rape in the American penal system, but as that rarely leads to pregnancy, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of this discussion). You will never be able to prevent people from having sex.
Someone clearly has not seen the graph about how low the rate of children born out of wedlock was.

So you're going to get poor people fucking. You just will. It's an absolute certainty. And these people might be more interested in buying themselves a sandwich than a box of condoms.
or a new iphone!

With enough fucking, you're probably going to see some pregnancies. These people are already living off our dollar through welfare money, and the kid is just a further expense we're going to have to take on as taxpayers. Wouldn't it be an easier burden on all of us, the taxpayers as well as the poor people who are about to be burdened with a child they can't afford and often don't want, if they were to, say, not get pregnant in the first place? If they were able to have an option that didn't lead to a child being brought into this world that they have absolutely no ability to care for? Something that was cheaper for everyone involved than the cost of rasing a child to the age of 18?

That's true fiscal conservatism. We end up paying for lots of people's mistakes. Maybe paying a whole lot less to keep them from happening in the first place makes more sense.
Of course all of your blather assumes that they do not want to have children in the first place. When a MINIMUM of 20% all births are to women who both cannot afford them and for whom the pregnancy was planned.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Who said anything about "demanding everyone pay for their ... abortions"?

That $5K/year for the condoms (not diaphrams or birth control pills) in question are strictly for the poor population in a county with a total population of over 60k. That $5k would not supply much of the total county population's annual condom consumption.

Condoms seems to make this a MALE issue.

And as pointed out ... avoiding JUST ONE unplanned birth saves at minimum over $90k in public school costs/child born.

So nehalem, IF ... it were your choice, which would you prefer, $5K for the condoms or a minimum $90K (possibly multiples) for public funded public school education/unplanned birth?

Would you please tell us the CORRECT ANSWER based on your value system?
You appear to be living in some kind of dream world where people cannot afford condoms.

25 cents a piece. Any man can afford that. Less than $100/year.

And by the way ACA does not make condoms free. Only female BC. Even the Democrats do not see a reason to make them free they are so affordable!

BTW, since you raised the abortion issue, while you are at it ... please tell us if ANY woman in the US is ever required/forced to have an abortion?
Unfortunately not.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I've seen an Obama ad talking about abortion and how Romney wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
There isn't ever going to be a single campaign where each candidate does not critique every position of the other, at some point in time. Why should Obama pretend that Romney doesn't want to cut off funding for PP? However, mentioning it isn't dwelling on it. This doesn't answer the allegation of Obama "bringing up wedge issues" to avoid talking about the economy. I've been listening to both candidates quite a bit, and neither are really dwelling on abortion or other social issues all that much. Both are talking extensively about the economy. The main difference is that Obama is talking quite a bit more about foreign policy than is Romney. Still, it's kind of ridiculous to expect these social issues would never come up at all.
 
Jun 7, 2012
67
0
0
Originally Posted by 50 mpg by 2012
Who said anything about "demanding everyone pay for their ... abortions"?

That $5K/year for the condoms (not diaphrams or birth control pills) in question are strictly for the poor population in a county with a total population of over 60k. That $5k would not supply much of the total county population's annual condom consumption.

Condoms seems to make this a MALE issue.

And as pointed out ... avoiding JUST ONE unplanned birth saves at minimum over $90k in public school costs/child born.

So nehalem, IF ... it were your choice, which would you prefer, $5K for the condoms or a minimum $90K (possibly multiples) for public funded public school education/unplanned birth?

Would you please tell us the CORRECT ANSWER based on your value system?
You appear to be living in some kind of dream world where people cannot afford condoms.

25 cents a piece. Any man can afford that. Less than $100/year.

And by the way ACA does not make condoms free. Only female BC. Even the Democrats do not see a reason to make them free they are so affordable!
I guess you and your area are very lucky.

There are people in my area that have insufficient income to afford adequate reasonably healthy meals for their families. Some are even homeless.

Keep in mind that $100 will buy roughly 120 to 150 pounds of potatoes or with luck 40 loaves of bread. Not a balanced diet ... but it is food.

Currently those condoms are dispenced by the county health dept. But, any way you figure it this still sounds like a male problem.

Originally Posted by 50 mpg by 2012

BTW, since you raised the abortion issue, while you are at it ... please tell us if ANY woman in the US is ever required/forced to have an abortion?
Unfortunately not.
nehalem please clarify ... your "Unfortunately not".

Are you saying you are opposed to abortions, in favor of FORCING SOME women to have abortions ... or both?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I guess you and your area are very lucky.

There are people in my area that have insufficient income to afford adequate reasonably healthy meals for their families. Some are even homeless.

Keep in mind that $100 will buy roughly 120 to 150 pounds of potatoes or with luck 40 loaves of bread. Not a balanced diet ... but it is food.

Currently those condoms are dispenced by the county health dept. But, any way you figure it this still sounds like a male problem.
If they are homeless where are they going to be having sex? :D

Sounds like a poor male problem to me. I do not owe people condoms anymore than I owe them an xbox. Perhaps they should try anal sex the free bc?

nehalem please clarify ... your "Unfortunately not".

Are you saying you are opposed to abortions, in favor of FORCING SOME women to have abortions ... or both?
I am opposed to paying for other people's abortions. And in favor of women who cannot afford to feed their children being forced to have one.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
And someone that wants to raise taxes to help balance the budget is a fiscal liberal to you. Where does that leave us?
Someone who believes that raising taxes will in any serious way help to balance the budget is a fiscal liberal.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
Someone who believes that raising taxes will in any serious way help to balance the budget is a fiscal liberal.
Federal tax revenues as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since 1950.

Wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since 1950.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest point since 1950.

Income share of the top 1% has basically doubled since 1980.

Tax rates for the top 1% are at their lowest level since 1980.

Facts have a Liberal bias, huh?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
0
0
Federal tax revenues as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since 1950.

Wages as a % of GDP are at their lowest point since 1950.

Corporate taxes are at their lowest point since 1950.

Income share of the top 1% has basically doubled since 1980.

Tax rates for the top 1% are at their lowest level since 1980.

Facts have a Liberal bias, huh?
Show me a federal budget that has been balanced, directly, by raising taxes. Such a budget doesn't exist.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY