Republican vs. Democrat

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2481468
I know you don't man.
It was very confusing. Had I not seen it yesterday on the news I wouldn't have caught it.
I believe much of the confusion is coming from certain webpages that are releasing the Madison speech (the one where she uses the word "really") while labeling it the Milwaukee speech.
Beware the media.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2482441
Beware the media.

Beware the Liberal media... I saw both speeches the day after just fine on my "fair and balanced" news programs

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2482439
Honestly, and sincerely, I think he didn't answer because if he did the press would turn it into "McCain feels that without condoms, all teens are doomed and if he's president all teens would have free access to as many condoms as they think they may need."
So either way, an answer would have doomed him.
Plus clearly he was asking his assistant to look up what his previous statements might have been about the subject. It really is an odd question to be asked off the cuff like that. I'm sure he didn't want to sound like a flip-flopper.

 

[tizzo]

Well, I see it like this.
"Mccain, you DO agree that condoms help to prevent the spread of aids and std's?"
Then he says of course.
"And you DO agree that the spread of STD's and aids is fairly rampant in the teen population. Given the statistics of course"
Then he sees where it's going and says uuuhhh, yeah, I guess so.
"So then, in your opinion, wouldn't it make sense to put condoms in school where they have free access. To prevent the spread of aids and std's of course?"
BAM! trapped!

 

[jmick]

He didn't answer the question because he has to grovel to the religious right.
This is a direct quote from McCain.
McCain: I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, ‘Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?’
How could this be the number one issue?

 

[m0nk]

I think people spend too much time worrying about other people's political affiliation. I'm willing to bet that if you don't know someone's politics and meet them in person, you'll have a much higher opinion of them than if you knew and disagreed with their politics and met them in person.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2482467
He didn't answer the question because he has to grovel to the religious right.
This is a direct quote from McCain.
McCain: I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, ‘Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?’
How could this be the number one issue?
Easy. Name 1 non-Judeo Christian president that we have ever had.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2482400
I love the double standards here, why is it that young women who have --- early are "slutty" but there is never mention about young men?
Society created the double standard.
I didn't create anything new. This is how it is. I don't condone it. Boys should be taught to respect girls. By engaging in premarital --- boys disrespect the girl and her future husband. It's the girl who has to bear the burden of having children (we all know the boy won't stick around) so the weight is hers to bear. Do I kill my child so I can do it again, or do I grow up before I should. Girls should not have to make this choice. And, again, if passing out condoms worked there would be no abortion issue. I think we can agree that abortion is an issue, right?
Abstinence is absolutely the answer.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2482380
Just to be perfectly clear, I never made mention of RACE! I said lower class. If you associate that with a particular race, that's your issue not mine.
I don't care that your african american and I don't see how that has relevance on what your saying, or why you chose to disclose that info on that particular post.
Helping somebody cause they just lost their job, fine. Taking care of the kids of parents who can't do it fine. BUt every person who sits at a welfare interview has to speak with somebody, and your telling me that they never even consider it could be them doing that very job?? Fine. Their fault, their upbringing, no matter. A couple of hungry cold nights might teach them real fast how easy it is to get a job.
My mom grew up in the projects, she was very street smart, but she had enough sense to know that getting out of there was in her best interest. I don't know how she knew, she just did.
So you blame the economy, the education, and the parenting and you foot the bill for their ignorance. But I don't buy it. As long as they have free rent, food and healthcare they have no motivation to improve their lives.
I am not saying you are racist or anything like that.... I am agreeing with you... I included race because people usually associate black with projects, and its not... There are all races in the projects... and I am stating as a minority that often deals with the stereotype... that I am agreeing with you that its not about race. Just like if I say trailer park.. people get an image in their mind of what that person looks like.
As far as economics... I don't mean the economy... but their lack or or inability to make a decent earning.... And I agree with the motivation issue, however I think you can give incentive for them to get motivated and I think a timeline is a part of that.

 

[tizzo]

oh...oops...
The "people like you" thing got me in a defensive rile. Sorry bout that.
But YOu know, a few years back Clinton tried that time line thing. Public assistance for 5 years total. 2 years on, 1 off, 2 on, 1 off then 1 more year on. At the end of that 7 year period, you know what happened?? What are we gonna do, we have no place to go, were gonna be homeless and hungry!! Sooo, they dismissed the 5 year per lifetime assisted life.
The deadline didn't matter at all. And if the gov woulda stuck to their guns and didn't help the people, then our bleeding hearts would be crying out loud for them and making it look like the the gov screwed up. They had no choice but to submiss and keep paying.
darned if you do, darned if you don't.
Americans wanna help so bad, but they want somebody else to do the legwork. I think if somebody cries that they should have a free place to stay, then they should stay at their house. Betcha money nobody would cry for them then.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2482478
Society created the double standard.
I didn't create anything new. This is how it is. I don't condone it. Boys should be taught to respect girls. By engaging in premarital --- boys disrespect the girl and her future husband. It's the girl who has to bear the burden of having children (we all know the boy won't stick around) so the weight is hers to bear. Do I kill my child so I can do it again, or do I grow up before I should. Girls should not have to make this choice. And, again, if passing out condoms worked there would be no abortion issue. I think we can agree that abortion is an issue, right?
Abstinence is absolutely the answer.
Of course abortion is an issue but abstince is not the answer or a feasible solution. Life experience is greatly under-rated at times and to think that having no experience before you are married is something grand is completely absurd. These life experiences guide us and help us pick what's right for us and what we enjoy to help make sure we pick a like minded partner. On top of that, it's very enjoyable, healthy if done safely, can help build bonds and strenthen relationships and is natural.

 

[zman1]

I never understood the line that Democrats are tax and spend and that implies Republicans aren't tax and spend, but just spend. The following graph shows the budgets approved by presidents of the yearly budgets and national debt. "Black" are Republican Presidents and "Green" are Democratic presidents. Both budgets and national debt soaring are tied to Republican presidents. I haven't tied the ruling congressional parties during the timeframes, but the president if effective, should be able to influence the spending of congress, correct? Otherwise, I don't want to hear it from the presidential candidates...

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2482506
I never understood the line that Democrats are tax and spend and that implies Republicans aren't tax and spend, but just spend. The following graph shows the budgets approved by presidents of the yearly budgets and national debt. "Black" are Republican Presidents and "Green" are Democratic presidents. Both budgets and national debt soaring are tied to Republican presidents. I haven't tied the ruling congressional parties during the timeframes, but the president if effective, should be able to influence the spending of congress, correct? Otherwise, I don't want to hear it from the presidential candidates...
I don't think any Republican minds paying for the military or other relevant programs approved of by the constitution. Republicans get angry at Dems who want to raise taxes for stupid social programs that have been proven not to work or other goose chases like global warming.
Like Journey said before, I'd be happy to pay an Iraq war tax; but we don't want to piss our money away to people unwilling to work and to giving condoms to kids in school.
Also, Republicans don't try to single out any tax payer; versus Democrats who think they are entitled to the wealthy's money.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2482501
Of course abortion is an issue but abstince is not the answer or a feasible solution. Life experience is greatly under-rated at times and to think that having no experience before you are married is something grand is completely absurd. These life experiences guide us and help us pick what's right for us and what we enjoy to help make sure we pick a like minded partner. On top of that, it's very enjoyable, healthy if done safely, can help build bonds and strenthen relationships and is natural.

I disagree wholeheartedly and wish I could do it all over again. The emotional luggage that comes with knowing your spouse has slept with "X" number of other men/women can grind away at your relationship even if you are not fully aware of it. "Life experiences", as you put it are highly overrated.
I stand by my statement that abstinence is the way to approach the issue for both physical and emotional reasons.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2482569
I disagree wholeheartedly and wish I could do it all over again. The emotional luggage that comes with knowing your spouse has slept with "X" number of other men/women can grind away at your relationship even if you are not fully aware of it. "Life experiences", as you put it are highly overrated.
I stand by my statement that abstinence is the way to approach the issue for both physical and emotional reasons.
I agree with this as well.. which is why you should marry someone like you... meaning same values... for some people they don't care.. and some even have open relationships

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2482569
I disagree wholeheartedly and wish I could do it all over again. The emotional luggage that comes with knowing your spouse has slept with "X" number of other men/women can grind away at your relationship even if you are not fully aware of it. "Life experiences", as you put it are highly overrated.
I stand by my statement that abstinence is the way to approach the issue for both physical and emotional reasons.
I would too!
I like how we are now justifying extensive --- education because its what is on MTV these days.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
http:///forum/post/2482556
I don't think any Republican minds paying for the military or other relevant programs approved of by the constitution... Republicans get angry at Dems who want to raise taxes for stupid social programs .....
Bottomline, you can't spend more money than you take in for what ever reason albeit a Republican or Democrat, Etc...
Again, I have always been confused with the Republican standard "Tax and Spend Democrats" When it is the Republicans that don't want tax increases and want tax cuts generally, that don't support the budgets they approve. Look at the chart again - NO one is paying for it, it's called debt!!! That's double standard rhetoric IMO. Where the honest truthful answer can't be asked/answer by candidates because everyone wants something for nothing. Unless it comes to what I want and would pay for (acutally borrow money from China?), but I am not willing to pay for something else period - That's what I think we call either self -centered or selfish in society isn't it or wait political partisanship. What's in it only for me and only me....

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2482569
I disagree wholeheartedly and wish I could do it all over again. The emotional luggage that comes with knowing your spouse has slept with "X" number of other men/women can grind away at your relationship even if you are not fully aware of it. "Life experiences", as you put it are highly overrated.
I stand by my statement that abstinence is the way to approach the issue for both physical and emotional reasons.
Maybe I am a little more secure with who I am as a person because it doesn't really matter to me how many partners my wife has had...I've never asked or cared because who she slept with before we met has no bearing on our relationship. Actaully, those past relationships helped to mold her into the person she was when we met and she was/is fantastic so no complaints here.
Again, it's funny how it only matters how many partners a woman has had and for a man it's something to be proud of. Seriously, if it's a problem then you have serious self image problems and might lack something.
Abstinence might be an approach that works for a few but for the vast majority it's rubbish and a dream of the religious right.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2482582
Bottomline, you can't spend more money than you take in for what ever reason albeit a Republican or Democrat, Etc...
Again, I have always been confused with the Republican standard "Tax and Spend Democrats" When it is the Republicans that don't want tax increases and want tax cuts generally, that don't support the budgets they approve. That's double standard rhetoric IMO. Where the honest truthful answer can't be asked/answer by candidates because everyone wants something for nothing. Unless it comes to what I want and would pay for it, but I am not willing to pay for something else period - That's what I think we call either self -centered or selfish in society isn't it or wait political partisanship. What's in it only for me and only me....
This is a good point... it seems Democrats raise taxes and expand programs, but they pay for it...republicans lower taxes, cut programs, and borrow money to pay for them... so which one are we worst or better off with?

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2482582
Bottomline, you can't spend more money than you take in for what ever reason albeit a Republican or Democrat, Etc...
Again, I have always been confused with the Republican standard "Tax and Spend Democrats" When it is the Republicans that don't want tax increases and want tax cuts generally, that don't support the budgets they approve. That's double standard rhetoric IMO. Where the honest truthful answer can't be asked/answer by candidates because everyone wants something for nothing. Unless it comes to what I want and would pay for it, but I am not willing to pay for something else period - That's what I think we call either self -centered or selfish in society isn't it or wait political partisanship. What's in it only for me and only me....
Like I said before its not that anyone is needy or selfish, altruistic. Its that social programs and most programs dreamed up by the Dems to redistribute wealth is no where near the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I agree its def. propaganda, which is why I don't refer to Dems as tax and spend. I think that a blatant "double standard rhetoric" is Hillary telling us the rich aren't taxed enough and should have a cap when she is a multi-millionaire herself while Bill rakes in $30 mil in speech giving. I doubt that they paid more than the minimum in income tax.