Liberals: The True Minority

[aquapub]

Would you care to show me proof of NAMBLA members being invited to march in gay pride parades?

Sure. Gay pride invitation lists can be found on Google. Give me a minute. :roll:

 

[Moot]

If you check out liberal web sites much these days, the one common thread they all have (other than hysteria and conspiracy theories) is that what gets them by from one election to the next is this fantasy that there is this unsung silent majority of liberals just waiting (...and waiting) to jump out of the woodwork and deliver unbathed hippy justice to the man.

Reality:


2) There have only been 4 liberal presidents in the last 60 years.

The fact, and it is a fact that Democrats had control of congress for FORTY YEARS proves that the country is more liberal than not. FORTY YEARS, people.

In 1994 Republicans promised to bring morallity and ethics to government. But in lieu of the appalling corruption and indecent behaviour in recent years by the Republican controlled congress, it clear that they are incapable of living up their own ethical and moral standards. The public can plainly see who are the hypocrties and who are not. Because even though Democrats are not perfect, at least they never claimed to be.

 

[aquapub]

1 Then why would there be more registered Democrats than Republicans?

2 Why have Republicans only held congress for 12 out of the last 60 years?

3 When Polled, 70% of Americans believe the United States should ratify the Kyto Treaty.

4 When Polled, a solid majority of Americans are to one degree or another Pro-Choice.

5 When Polled, a majority of Americans are in favor of Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians.

6 When Polled, a majority of Americans favor Affirmative Action.

7 Do I even need to get into polls on the war in Iraq or Bush's approval ratings compared to Clintons?

1 The south is filled with Zell Miller Democrats who always vote Republican.

2 It's rare that either party holds congress. And the presidency is almost always Republican. Congress is usually given to the opposition party, except for the stunning victory for Republicans while Bush has been in office.

3 That poll, like most of your polls, leaves out something critical and isn't representative of most polls. The polls that bother to mention the fact that Kyoto would cut 1/3 of American production (jobs), support goes the other direction.

4 Use to be 65%...been dropping for years. Now pro-abortion sentiment is down to 55% on the average poll. Again, VERY MISLEADING.

5 Overwhelming majorities of voters enacted gay marriage bans, even in liberal states like Oregon. And that evangelical excuse doesn't cut it because most of the polls leading up to that election showed 60-85% of Americans being against gay marriage...well beyond the range of impact of evangelicals.

6 Not when it is referred to as what it is-race preferences/quotas.

7 Do I even need to get into Carter vs. Reagan, Mondale vs. Reagan?

What little of your "evidence" that isn't based on snapshot polls that change every day, is completely subjective.

When the conversation takes place on honest terms, the public is overwhelmingly conservative on everything from gay marriage to the death penalty, to sex offender laws, to school vouchers, to removing God from money, to flag burning, to frivolous lawsuits, to race preferences.

"In polls, most Americans oppose gay marriage but are far more accepting of civil unions, sometimes with a slim majority."

USA TODAY. December 22, 2005. Sound of shifting ground.

"Indeed, two-thirds of blacks favor school vouchers, according to a Newsweek poll. Nearly two-thirds oppose same-sex marriage, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. And more than half support Social Security personal accounts, according to Zogby poll."

The San Diego Union-Tribune. December 3, 2004. Wrong road for civil rights groups.

"Polls show a majority supports flag protections."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania). June 28, 2006. SENATE REJECTS BAN ON FLAG BURNING

"...public sentiment in favor of capital punishment remains strong: 69 percent in the 2005 Gallup poll supported the death penalty for murder. A majority told Gallup that the death penalty is not imposed often enough. Fewer people expressed concern about wrongful executions in 2005 than in 2003."

The Washington Post. January 2, 2006. Changing Attitudes About the Death Penalty.

It goes on and on. Mainstream America is conservative, period. :mrgreen:

 

[Moot]

Overwhelming majorities of voters enacted gay marriage bans, even in liberal states like Oregon. And that evangelical excuse doesn't cut it because most of the polls leading up to that election showed 60-85% of Americans being against gay marriage...well beyond the range of impact of evangelicals.

Now that things have cooled down a bit since 2004, the polls are showing Americans more accepting of Gays....

The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

Despite the fact that gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot in seven states this year, the atmosphere surrounding the issue of gay marriage has cooled off, and public intensity has dissipated compared with two years ago. "Strong" opposition to gay marriage, which surged in 2004, has ebbed to a new low. This is particularly the case among seniors, Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today. White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in which a majority still strongly opposes gay marriage, but even here the intensity of feeling has receded somewhat.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

White....Evangelical Protestants....are the ONLY group that remains staunchly conservative and anti-Gay in America.

It goes on and on. Mainstream America is conservative, period. :mrgreen:

Americans overwhelmingly still hold these Liberal values ....

Liberals share a belief in individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law. In this sense, almost all Americans accept liberal ideals, so much so that it is easy to forget how revolutionary these ideals were when the American Constitution was written... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism



Americans were, are and always will be LIBERAL as long as they continue to uphold the Constitution to be self evident.

 

[jallman]

Sure. Gay pride invitation lists can be found on Google. Give me a minute. :roll:

So...where is your evidence that NAMBLA was invited to take part in any gay pride festival? Come on Mr. Nexus Lexus...show it...

 

[aquapub]

1) Now that things have cooled down a bit since 2004, the polls are showing Americans more accepting of Gays....

The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

Despite the fact that gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot in seven states this year, the atmosphere surrounding the issue of gay marriage has cooled off, and public intensity has dissipated compared with two years ago. "Strong" opposition to gay marriage, which surged in 2004, has ebbed to a new low. This is particularly the case among seniors, Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today. White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in which a majority still strongly opposes gay marriage, but even here the intensity of feeling has receded somewhat.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273

White....Evangelical Protestants....are the ONLY group that remains staunchly conservative and anti-Gay in America.


2)
Americans overwhelmingly still hold these Liberal values ....

Liberals share a belief in individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law. In this sense, almost all Americans accept liberal ideals, so much so that it is easy to forget how revolutionary these ideals were when the American Constitution was written... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_liberalism

Americans were, are and always will be LIBERAL as long as they continue to uphold the Constitution to be self evident.

1) From your source:

"Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today."

...demonstrating further the unreliability of polls. I only published poll results to show that you could produce ones which paint the exact opposite picture of what SD was presenting.

2) You are talking about Liberalism (big L: individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law). I am talking about liberalism (little L: pro-criminal, anti-defense, anti-religious expression, anti-economic sanity, etc.)

 

[jfuh]

2) You are talking about Liberalism (big L: individual rights, free enterprise, representative democracy, and the rule of law). I am talking about liberalism (little L: pro-criminal, anti-defense, anti-religious expression, anti-economic sanity, etc.)

:lamo, really big difference there.

 

[aquapub]

So...where is your evidence that NAMBLA was invited to take part in any gay pride festival? Come on Mr. Nexus Lexus...show it...

Here is the closest thing Nexis has to your stupidly impossible demand:

"...it is hard for me to accept the tolerance that the gay community has shown towards pedophiles by allowing members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) to march in the Gay Pride parades in San Francisco, New York and Boston. Some have stated that pedophiles are primarily heterosexual. I've never seen a group of organized heterosexual pedophiles marching in parades.

The gay and lesbian community should denounce groups like NAMBLA, who hide behind the gay cause..."

The Boston Herald. June 26, 1998. Pg. 030.

"I look at the gay pride parade coming up the avenue and I see the gay activists and they are followed by a group from Nambla, the pedophiles."

The New York Times. January 19, 1997. Section 13; Page 3. MAKING IT WORKING; Has the Mayor Made a Difference?


Note that two different people here, in two liberal papers, are acknowledging that they've seen NAMBLA proudly marching along side gay pride marchers. Seems gay pride marchers might make them leave if they objected to them.

 

[aquapub]

:lamo, really big difference there.

Translation: "I've never taken a Western Civ. course."

:lol:

You're showing your ignorance again, dufus

 

[jallman]

Here is the closest thing Nexis has to your stupidly impossible demand:

"...it is hard for me to accept the tolerance that the gay community has shown towards pedophiles by allowing members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) to march in the Gay Pride parades in San Francisco, New York and Boston. Some have stated that pedophiles are primarily heterosexual. I've never seen a group of organized heterosexual pedophiles marching in parades.

The gay and lesbian community should denounce groups like NAMBLA, who hide behind the gay cause..."

The Boston Herald. June 26, 1998. Pg. 030.

"I look at the gay pride parade coming up the avenue and I see the gay activists and they are followed by a group from Nambla, the pedophiles."

The New York Times. January 19, 1997. Section 13; Page 3. MAKING IT WORKING; Has the Mayor Made a Difference?


Note that two different people here, in two liberal papers, are acknowledging that they've seen NAMBLA proudly marching along side gay pride marchers. Seems gay pride marchers might make them leave if they objected to them.

So basically, you made an egregious claim that NAMBLA was invited to the gay pride parades, and then when I called you to task, you found my need for you to back up your claim to be...what was the word...oh yeah, stupid. How much more trifling can you be...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It goes on and on. Mainstream America is conservative, period. :mrgreen:

Then why being that Republicans have held congress for 12 years, and the Whitehouse for 6, have you been unable to enact zero of the Social Conservative Agenda? You have been unable to roll back one iota of the Great Society and no hope of ever touching the New Deal. The fact is, this nation by and large is a progressive nation. Most people are moderates, they do not want more socialism, but they certainly don't want less either.

For example, the two presidents in the last 100 years that made the largest impact upon the United States in terms of getting their agenda enacted was FDR and LBJ. Virtually the entire public sector, and largely our society is their doing. As far as lasting Republican Accomplishments, you have Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System, Nixon and the EPA and opening up China, and Reagan and ending the Cold War. Those are all certainly no small accomplishment. Especially on the part of Reagan. However, virtually every other aspect of government is the work of Liberals and Progressives. Weekends off, Medicare, Social Security, Child Labor Laws, Worker Protections, The Minimum Wage, National Parks, National Forests, Clean Air, Clean Water, Civil Rights, The Marshall Plan, Women's Sufferage, Public Radio and Television.... the list goes on and on. Our entire society is built upon the work of those liberals and progressives you love to hate. Hell, even Ronald Reagan's favorite President and Childhood Hero was none other than FDR, probably the most liberal president in the history of the United States.

Anytime Conservatives even attempt to touch any liberal or progressive programs, they pay dearly for it at the polls. The only thing I can think of that Republicans were successful in reforming was Welfare, and hell the Welfare Program was so flawed that even Johnson wanted to reform it. Moreover, social conservatives have consistently over the last 100 years been on the losing side of every single cultural war they have tried to fight.

Let me let you in on a little secret. If you want to know where most Americans are ideologically, then its pretty much in the middle. For example, I live in Kansas now. Kansas is one of the reddest states in the nation, yet we have a Democrat Governor. Guess what, she will probably win reelection with a 20 point plus margin. Why? Because even in one of the reddest states in the nation, the extremist conservatism that guys like you expouse scares the hell out of people. They would rather have a moderate Democrat for the Governor than a Conservative Republican any day.

Most Americans ideologically are about in line with Clinton or Bush Sr. Either a little left of center or a little right of center. Those like you are extremists and the far right and far left is full of them.

 

[Deegan]

Then why being that Republicans have held congress for 12 years, and the Whitehouse for 6, have you been unable to enact zero of the Social Conservative Agenda? You have been unable to roll back one iota of the Great Society and no hope of ever touching the New Deal. The fact is, this nation by and large is a progressive nation. Most people are moderates, they do not want more socialism, but they certainly don't want less either.

For example, the two presidents in the last 100 years that made the largest impact upon the United States in terms of getting their agenda enacted was FDR and LBJ. Virtually the entire public sector, and largely our society is their doing. As far as lasting Republican Accomplishments, you have Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System, Nixon and the EPA and opening up China, and Reagan and ending the Cold War. Those are all certainly no small accomplishment. Especially on the part of Reagan. However, virtually every other aspect of government is the work of Liberals and Progressives. Weekends off, Medicare, Social Security, Child Labor Laws, Worker Protections, The Minimum Wage, National Parks, National Forests, Clean Air, Clean Water, Civil Rights, The Marshall Plan, Women's Sufferage, Public Radio and Television.... the list goes on and on. Our entire society is built upon the work of those liberals and progressives you love to hate. Hell, even Ronald Reagan's favorite President and Childhood Hero was none other than FDR, probably the most liberal president in the history of the United States.

Anytime Conservatives even attempt to touch any liberal or progressive programs, they pay dearly for it at the polls. The only thing I can think of that Republicans were successful in reforming was Welfare, and hell the Welfare Program was so flawed that even Johnson wanted to reform it. Moreover, social conservatives have consistently over the last 100 years been on the losing side of every single cultural war they have tried to fight.

Let me let you in on a little secret. If you want to know where most Americans are ideologically, then its pretty much in the middle. For example, I live in Kansas now. Kansas is one of the reddest states in the nation, yet we have a Democrat Governor. Guess what, she will probably win reelection with a 20 point plus margin. Why? Because even in one of the reddest states in the nation, the extremist conservatism that guys like you expouse scares the hell out of people. They would rather have a moderate Democrat for the Governor than a Conservative Republican any day.

Most Americans ideologically are about in line with Clinton or Bush Sr. Either a little left of center or a little right of center. Those like you are extremists and the far right and far left is full of them.

They certainly do want less socialism, and that is why Clinton cut the welfare program, and it worked, people didn't starve, they got off their arse and got work. Socialism is for the weak, the old, the handicapped, it's not for lazy mothers who sit on the butt and pop out one kid after another, that is what it has become. So don't sit there and pretend the entire country does not want less, we do, and we are going to have to change these programs drastically, or we will bankrupt this nation.

One only needs to see what welfare has done to this country by examining the new report that has come out on "The Ten Most Dangerous Cities" Where are the liberals when their social programs fail, and these cities end up poverty stricken slums?:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

They certainly do want less socialism, and that is why Clinton cut the welfare program, and it worked, people didn't starve, they got off their arse and got work. Socialism is for the weak, the old, the handicapped, it's not for lazy mothers who sit on the butt and pop out one kid after another, that is what it has become. So don't sit there and pretend the entire country does not want less, we do, and we are going to have to change these programs drastically, or we will bankrupt this nation.

One only needs to see what welfare has done to this country by examining the new report that has come out on "The Ten Most Dangerous Cities" Where are the liberals when their social programs fail, and these cities end up poverty stricken slums?:roll:

You really think Americans want less socialism?

Try cutting farm subsidies, see what happens.

Try cutting Medicare benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting Social Security benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting unemployment benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting Chips programs or Medicaid for children, see what happens.

Try gutting Head Start, see what happens.

Try gutting Federally Backed Student Loans and Grants, see what happens.

Try cutting funding to Public Schools and see what happens.

Those are all forms of Socialism, and if any attempts to touch them, they are promptly ran out of office even in the most conservative states. That is why I say the whole notion that America is "Conservative" is absurd. Socialism permeates all aspects of our society, and aside from reforming welfare, which even LBJ supported, touching any of those socialist programs is a quick ticket out of office. People elect conservatives as a curb on liberalism, not as an endorsement of conservatism.

 

[Deegan]

You really think Americans want less socialism?

Try cutting farm subsidies, see what happens.

Try cutting Medicare benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting Social Security benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting unemployment benefits, see what happens.

Try cutting Chips programs or Medicaid for children, see what happens.

Try gutting Head Start, see what happens.

Try gutting Federally Backed Student Loans and Grants, see what happens.

Try cutting funding to Public Schools and see what happens.

Those are all forms of Socialism, and if any attempts to touch them, they are promptly ran out of office even in the most conservative states. That is why I say the whole notion that America is "Conservative" is absurd. Socialism permeates all aspects of our society, and aside from reforming welfare, which even LBJ supported, touching any of those socialist programs is a quick ticket out of office. People elect conservatives as a curb on liberalism, not as an endorsement of conservatism.

The majority are Goldwater conservatives, that's true, and I never mentioned any of those, they either fall under the examples I had given, or promote progress. The problems with S.S do have to be addressed, as well as Medicare, but you are correct, that sets off alarms. Still, if you pretend there is no problem, you are only helping to pass this problem off on your children. They know they can play with these funds, because even the mention of reform has folks screaming foul, and they depend on your hysteria to keep these problems hidden, and the money available to steal.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The majority are Goldwater conservatives, that's true, and I never mentioned any of those, they either fall under the examples I had given, or promote progress. The problems with S.S do have to be addressed, as well as Medicare, but you are correct, that sets off alarms. Still, if you pretend there is no problem, you are only helping to pass this problem off on your children. They know they can play with these funds, because even the mention of reform has folks screaming foul, and they depend on your hysteria to keep these problems hidden, and the money available to steal.

I am not saying that we should not reform many of those programs. I think we should. All I am saying is that the reason why we cant, is that when you get down to it, the majority of Americans are pretty damn socialist to one degree or another.

 

[Deegan]

I am not saying that we should not reform many of those programs. I think we should. All I am saying is that the reason why we cant, is that when you get down to it, the majority of Americans are pretty damn socialist to one degree or another.

Most people want the sick and elderly taken care of, themselves including, when they reach that point, but other then that, no, I would not agree with that assessment, "pretty damn socialist"

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Most people want the sick and elderly taken care of, themselves including, when they reach that point, but other then that, no, I would not agree with that assessment, "pretty damn socialist"

What do you think socialism is? Its taking care of the poor, sick, and elderly. Everytime someone tries to touch a big government program that seemingly helps the poor, sick or elderly, they pay for it at the polls.

Hell, libertarians probably average less than 1% on election day even in local elections. If there was all these true economic conservatives out there, then why is that the case? The fact is, most people whether they admit to it or not, want their big government. They want public schools, they want universal healthcare, they want social security, they want medicare, they want farm subsidies.

Everybody rails against big government, but by their actions, they want it. You will pay less of a price cutting defense spending than you will social spending.

I am not saying that is a good or a bad thing, I am just saying that is reality, thus, once again, aquapub's entire premise is absurd.

 

[Deegan]

What do you think socialism is? Its taking care of the poor, sick, and elderly. Everytime someone tries to touch a big government program that seemingly helps the poor, sick or elderly, they pay for it at the polls.

Hell, libertarians probably average less than 1% on election day even in local elections. If there was all these true economic conservatives out there, then why is that the case? The fact is, most people whether they admit to it or not, want their big government. They want public schools, they want universal healthcare, they want social security, they want medicare, they want farm subsidies.

Everybody rails against big government, but by their actions, they want it. You will pay less of a price cutting defense spending than you will social spending.

I am not saying that is a good or a bad thing, I am just saying that is reality, thus, once again, aquapub's entire premise is absurd.

I'm talking about the socialism that is destroying our country, our major cities, the welfare generation that is growing by leaps and bounds, and it needs to end. We had a good start with Clinton, and Bush has taken us backwards with his liberal programs. I'm talking about the incredible increase in unwed mothers, mothers who are on everything from food stamps, housing, welfare, and other forms of asssitance. I am talking about a social system that asks no questions, and allows these women to have one child after another, and pay no price for this irresponsibility. I am talking about the lazy scum bags that live with them, and sit around and do nothing as well, or work just enough, knowing the government has got their back.

This is the kind of socialism I am referring to, and it's getting worse, but the political correctness crowd will not talk about it, or let it be discussed!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I'm talking about the socialism that is destroying our country, our major cities, the welfare generation that is growing by leaps and bounds, and it needs to end. We had a good start with Clinton, and Bush has taken us backwards with his liberal programs. I'm talking about the incredible increase in unwed mothers, mothers who are on everything from food stamps, housing, welfare, and other forms of asssitance. I am talking about a social system that asks no questions, and allows these women to have one child after another, and pay no price for this irresponsibility. I am talking about the lazy scum bags that live with them, and sit around and do nothing as well, or work just enough, knowing the government has got their back.

This is the kind of socialism I am referring to, and it's getting worse, but the political correctness crowd will not talk about it, or let it be discussed!

I think you are missing the point. I am not debating liberalism vs conservatism. I do not think that was the point of the thread either. Instead, aquapub started a thread with a rabid insinuation that liberals are in the minority.

My only point is that our entire society is based in liberalism and progressive programs. Thus, for better or for worse, actual conservatives obviously make up a small portion of the electorate. If actual conservatives were in the majority, then politicians would not pay such a political price everytime they even attempt to reform a socialist aspect of government.

As to your unwed mothers rant. Blame the religious right and social conservatives. They are the ones who are so hell bent against promoting contraceptive use and teaching safe sex in schools. If you want less unwed mothers, then you have to have less unplanned pregnancies. Its not as though people are going to quit having sex. So the only recourse we have as a society is to try to get a larger percentage to use some form of contraception.

 

[Deegan]

I think you are missing the point. I am not debating liberalism vs conservatism. I do not think that was the point of the thread either. Instead, aquapub started a thread with a rabid insinuation that liberals are in the minority.

My only point is that our entire society is based in liberalism and progressive programs. Thus, for better or for worse, actual conservatives obviously make up a small portion of the electorate. If actual conservatives were in the majority, then politicians would not pay such a political price everytime they even attempt to reform a socialist aspect of government.

As to your unwed mothers rant. Blame the religious right and social conservatives. They are the ones who are so hell bent against promoting contraceptive use and teaching safe sex in schools. If you want less unwed mothers, then you have to have less unplanned pregnancies. Its not as though people are going to quit having sex. So the only recourse we have as a society is to try to get a larger percentage to use some form of contraception.

I blame the lazy, irresponsible mothers, and the scum bag fathers that leave them, blaming the religious right or social conservatives is just as irresponsible, once again you never fail to amuse me.:roll:

I bring up a valid concern, you call it a rant, and then blame the right, you have finally lost all credibility with me, I thought you were more open minded, sadly I was wrong.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I blame the lazy, irresponsible mothers, and the scum bag fathers that leave them, blaming the religious right or social conservatives is just as irresponsible, once again you never fail to amuse me.:roll:

I bring up a valid concern, you call it a rant, and then blame the right, you have finally lost all credibility with me, I thought you were more open minded, sadly I was wrong.

I am not sure what you are arguing here. This thread is not about whether Liberal ideas and programs are successful or not.

The thread is about whether the majority of Americans accept or reject those ideas. I think, and I think I have logically demonstrated this as well, that obviously, whether people admit it or not, most people seem to support the status quo as far as liberal programs go. They don't necessarily support a huge extension of the role of government, but on the other hand, everytime a politician even so much as mentions reforming a socialist program, they take a beating at the polls. Thus, my point is and has been that obviously the majority of Americans are not true fiscal conservatives. Obviously, whether they admit it or not, the majority of Americans reluctantly and consistently support liberal and or progressive big government programs. They might complain about them, but in the end, the punish anyone who tries to reign them in dearly.

As to your other assertion, which has nothing at all to do with the thread. There is not a single government program or lack there of that will prevent welfare queens from having babies they cannot afford. Cut welfare all you want, and they are still going to do it, and since we are not just going to let their kids starve due to their parents laziness, we the taxpayer are going to end up picking up the tab for it. The reason for this is that contrary to the assertions of some ideological conservatives, welfare queens don't just go out and have planned pregnancies just because they want to get more welfare. Secondly, deadbeat dads don't go around impregnating different women just so those women can get more welfare. Instead, they have all these babies they cannot afford because they like having sex. There is nothing that we can do as a society to make sex less desirable. All we can do is promote as much as we possibly can contraceptive use. The fact is, if they don't get pregnant, then they are not going to have tons of kids. That is not the root of the problem, but it is the only facet of it that we as a society can even remotely hope to make a difference in. That is where the religious right and social conservatives are an impediment to progress. As the only area where we could hope to make a difference in would be contraceptive use and thus less unwanted pregnancies and less welfare queens, is also the area where the religious right fights pragmatists all the time. I really don't know how you could disagree with that statement either. That is unless you hold the absurd notion that many social conservatives hold in that you actually think that we can just get those welfare queens to sign an abstinence pledge and they will never have another kid outside of wedlock again.

 

[Deegan]

I am not sure what you are arguing here. This thread is not about whether Liberal ideas and programs are successful or not.

The thread is about whether the majority of Americans accept or reject those ideas. I think, and I think I have logically demonstrated this as well, that obviously, whether people admit it or not, most people seem to support the status quo as far as liberal programs go. They don't necessarily support a huge extension of the role of government, but on the other hand, everytime a politician even so much as mentions reforming a socialist program, they take a beating at the polls. Thus, my point is and has been that obviously the majority of Americans are not true fiscal conservatives. Obviously, whether they admit it or not, the majority of Americans reluctantly and consistently support liberal and or progressive big government programs. They might complain about them, but in the end, the punish anyone who tries to reign them in dearly.

As to your other assertion, which has nothing at all to do with the thread. There is not a single government program or lack there of that will prevent welfare queens from having babies they cannot afford. Cut welfare all you want, and they are still going to do it, and since we are not just going to let their kids starve due to their parents laziness, we the taxpayer are going to end up picking up the tab for it. The reason for this is that contrary to the assertions of some ideological conservatives, welfare queens don't just go out and have planned pregnancies just because they want to get more welfare. Secondly, deadbeat dads don't go around impregnating different women just so those women can get more welfare. Instead, they have all these babies they cannot afford because they like having sex. There is nothing that we can do as a society to make sex less desirable. All we can do is promote as much as we possibly can contraceptive use. The fact is, if they don't get pregnant, then they are not going to have tons of kids. That is not the root of the problem, but it is the only facet of it that we as a society can even remotely hope to make a difference in. That is where the religious right and social conservatives are an impediment to progress. As the only area where we could hope to make a difference in would be contraceptive use and thus less unwanted pregnancies and less welfare queens, is also the area where the religious right fights pragmatists all the time. I really don't know how you could disagree with that statement either. That is unless you hold the absurd notion that many social conservatives hold in that you actually think that we can just get those welfare queens to sign an abstinence pledge and they will never have another kid outside of wedlock again.

You seem quite comfortable with the problem, and just want to shrug it off, or try and pretend we can't take this discussion in a new direction, what are you worried about, going off topic? LOL, the truth is this is about liberal ideals, "just do what feels good kids, sit back, we will pay all of your bills" that is the liberal solution to this problem. This little problem that you think can be solved with "contraceptives" costs this country billions upon billions of dollars, and it can hardly be solved through planned parenthood. This is their plan sir, wake up, to get pregnant, get on assistance, and sit on their *** until their child turns 18!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You seem quite comfortable with the problem, and just want to shrug it off, or try and pretend we can't take this discussion in a new direction, what are you worried about, going off topic? LOL, the truth is this is about liberal ideals, "just do what feels good kids, sit back, we will pay all of your bills" that is the liberal solution to this problem. This little problem that you think can be solved with "contraceptives" costs this country billions upon billions of dollars, and it can hardly be solved through planned parenthood. This is their plan sir, wake up, to get pregnant, get on assistance, and sit on their *** until their child turns 18!

See there you go, claiming what you think is the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to have less poverty. If you have less poverty, then you will have less people on welfare.

Now, what are some of the causes of poverty in the United States?

1. Lack of Education.

2. Teenage Pregnancy.

3. Children out of Wedlock, especially in cases where no father figure is present.

4. Lack of economic opportunity.

5. High crime rates and drug use.

Now, what leads to poor education?

1. Bad schools.

2. Parents who do not take an active interest in their child's lives and education.

3. Teenage pregnancy.

4. Crime, drug use, and drop outs.

Now, what leads to crime, bad schools, and parents who do not take an active interest in their child's lives and education.

1. Teenage pregnancy.

2. Children born out of wedlock especially in cases where no father figure exists.

3. Drug use.

4. Lack of economic opportunity.

Now, what leads to lack of economic opportunity.

1. High crime.

2. Lack of education.

As you can see, there is a complex cycle here. Therefore what would be the single best way that we could at least partially break that cycle?

That of course would be to have less teenage pregnancies and less children born out of wedlock. By doing that you eventually have more involved parents, stronger families, and thus better education and less crime, thus more economic opportunities, thus lower poverty rates.

What is the best way to have less teenage pregnancies and less children born out of wedlock? Well, that would be to have less unintended pregnancies. The best way to do that is to vigorously promote contraception.

 

[Deegan]

See there you go, claiming what you think is the liberal solution. The liberal solution is to have less poverty. If you have less poverty, then you will have less people on welfare.

Now, what are some of the causes of poverty in the United States?

1. Lack of Education.

2. Teenage Pregnancy.

3. Children out of Wedlock, especially in cases where no father figure is present.

4. Lack of economic opportunity.

5. High crime rates and drug use.

Now, what leads to poor education?

1. Bad schools.

2. Parents who do not take an active interest in their child's lives and education.

3. Teenage pregnancy.

4. Crime, drug use, and drop outs.

Now, what leads to crime, bad schools, and parents who do not take an active interest in their child's lives and education.

1. Teenage pregnancy.

2. Children born out of wedlock especially in cases where no father figure exists.

3. Drug use.

4. Lack of economic opportunity.

Now, what leads to lack of economic opportunity.

1. High crime.

2. Lack of education.

As you can see, there is a complex cycle here. Therefore what would be the single best way that we could at least partially break that cycle?

That of course would be to have less teenage pregnancies and less children born out of wedlock. By doing that you eventually have more involved parents, stronger families, and thus better education and less crime, thus more economic opportunities, thus lower poverty rates.

What is the best way to have less teenage pregnancies and less children born out of wedlock? Well, that would be to have less unintended pregnancies. The best way to do that is to vigorously promote contraception.

And the solution is to get tough, condoms will only be worn or used if there is a real price to pay for irresponsibility. We have to change this idea that if you get in trouble, you will always be taken care of, and that will only happen when the checks stop rolling in. Hunger is a terrific motivator, and if you can't feed your child, that child should be taken away. Then, when you show you can take care of yourself, and your child, you can have your child back. I would rather see a child in the states custody, then with these terrible parents, this would also ensure the child does not grow up to repeat the pathetic examples shown by these parents. You have these people adopting African babies in foreign countries, when we have plenty of African babies that need good homes here.

Do you honestly think these kids today do not know about contraceptives, how very naive!:roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And the solution is to get tough, condoms will only be worn or used if there is a real price to pay for irresponsibility. We have to change this idea that if you get in trouble, you will always be taken care of, and that will only happen when the checks stop rolling in. Hunger is a terrific motivator, and if you can't feed your child, that child should be taken away. Then, when you show you can take care of yourself, and your child, you can have your child back. I would rather see a child in the states custody, then with these terrible parents, this would also ensure the child does not grow up to repeat the pathetic examples shown by these parents. You have these people adopting African babies in foreign countries, when we have plenty of African babies that need good homes here.

Do you honestly think these kids today do not know about contraceptives, how very naive!

Kids know about contraceptives. However, access to them is a different story. Moreover, they may know how to put on a condom, but I doubt that most inner city girls know about all the different contraceptive options available, much less have real access to them.

The problem to correcting that is that the Religious Right, has made sure that teaching anything other than pure abstinence in sex education classes and or providing access to contraceptives or teaching about them disqualifies schools from receiving any federal funding for sex ed.

As to your other assertions, frankly you are living in a dream world. They remind me of the old joke: “Vote Republican, it’s easier than thinking”. I did some CASA volunteer work back when I was single. We don’t have the funding or the social infrastructure to start taking away kids from lazy parents even if we wanted to. To take a child away from its parents, you have to prove the parents to be completely unfit to parent that child. Reasons for this would be things like imprisonment, chronic and sustained drug addiction, physical or sexual abuse of the child, or the parents lacking the mental capabilities to take care of the child. Laziness alone simply does not qualify.

So what are you going to do then, just start taking kids away from lazy sit on their *** parents? The problems in doing so are numerous. For one, the costs would far exceed the costs of welfare. Two, the psychological damage inflicted children who are taken away from their parents and placed as wards of the state are very severe. Three, there are not nearly enough foster families to house them all. Four, they would be virtually impossible to adopt out. Few people are looking to adopt entire families of inner city children. Five, it only makes the problem worse, children who are taken from their parents are statistically much more likely to use drugs or become pregnant at an early age. Finally, many of these children are not with their birth parents anyway, but rather their grandparents and in some cases even great-grandparents are stuck raising them.

Deadbeat parents drawing welfare pisses me off as much as the next guy, but unfortunately welfare is a necessary evil. The only alternative would be all the children of those deadbeat parents walking the streets on the brink of starvation looking for handouts like some scene out of Sub-Saharan Africa or something.

It seems to me that the better option is to pragmatically attack the causes of poverty. Less poverty = Less welfare. Less unintended pregnancies = Less poverty = Less welfare = Lower crime = Better schools = More Economic Opportunity = Less unintended pregnancies and the cycle continues.

We have tried simply locking people up. Being that we now have the highest incarceration rate on earth, it obviously doesn’t work. We have tried just ignoring the problem, that doesn’t work either. Prior to all these social programs, the poverty rate was well over 30%, since the 60s, it has never been above 13% or so. Obviously, those social programs have had some success. At this point, the answer is attacking the causes of poverty, not the safety net.