Political Crossfire Forums

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Republicans always seemed more pro birth than pro-life to me. i have several reasons why I believe this. They feel as long as you are born here, you have enough "opportunity" to make a good life for yourself. They have too much faith in the country they helped build, and undersestimate the effects of not having a stable home, in my opinion.

To be honest, it is sad that abortion is even a partisan topic. It should be split between both parties if you ask me. But it isnt.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

jlrobe wrote: Republicans always seemed more pro birth than pro-life to me. i have several reasons why I believe this. They feel as long as you are born here, you have enough "opportunity" to make a good life for yourself. They have too much faith in the country they helped build, and undersestimate the effects of not having a stable home, in my opinion.

To be honest, it is sad that abortion is even a partisan topic. It should be split between both parties if you ask me. But it isnt.

Funny how republicans are usually the ones who run the shelters, the adoption centers, give the most money to charity and welfare, and are pretty much against everything that makes for an unhappy/ unstable home, e.g. drugs, prostitution, abortion, child abuse, domestic violence, unemployment, adultery,......... you know, all those things that many liberals wish were legal..

What a coinky- dink.

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Sailor Moon wrote: jlrobe wrote: Republicans always seemed more pro birth than pro-life to me. i have several reasons why I believe this. They feel as long as you are born here, you have enough "opportunity" to make a good life for yourself. They have too much faith in the country they helped build, and undersestimate the effects of not having a stable home, in my opinion.

To be honest, it is sad that abortion is even a partisan topic. It should be split between both parties if you ask me. But it isnt.

Funny how republicans are usually the ones who run the shelters, the adoption centers, give the most money to charity and welfare, and are pretty much against everything that makes for an unhappy/ unstable home, e.g. drugs, prostitution, abortion, child abuse, domestic violence, unemployment, adultery,......... you know, all those things that many liberals wish were legal..

What a coinky- dink.

War on drugs, prostitution, and abortion, domestic violence, and adultry are issues of personal accountability, which I feel is a total crock. As for unstalbe homes, unemployement, and welfare, please give sources. I can give you at least 50 for democrats. AT LEAST. I cant think of any republican that strongly supported the equalization of unstable homes through social programs, strong funding of unemployment or welfare. Even if they did, dems fund it twice as much.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Ok here we go:

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/000885.html

^^^Kerry's returns from 1995 and earlier, before his marriage to Heinz, have sometimes attracted criticism over the issue of charitable giving. In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.
As far as Bush is concerned, in 1991, the future president, then a private citizen, reportedly had income of $179,591, and charitable contributions of $28,236. In 1992, Bush reported income of $212.313, and contributions of $31,914. In 1993, Bush reported income of $610,772, and contributions of $31,292. In 1994, Bush reported income of $474,937 and in 1995, income of $419,481. Published reports at that time did not list Bush's charitable contributions for those two years.

http://press.arrivenet.com/politics/article.php/480398.html

^^^Republicans generally fit the stereotype of their party: the vast majority is white and the group has the highest average annual household income of $54,000. Members of this self-identified group are more likely to favor increased defense spending and agree that men are better suited for politics than women. Strongly religious, Republicans are also more likely to have a gun in their home, and believe in the death penalty. Satisfied with their work and more comfortable with their financial situation than their counterparts, Republicans donate more to charities than either Democrats or Independents.

http://www.illinoispundit.com/archives/2005/10/31/the-media-and-hurricane-victims/?p=397

(illinois republicans donate more, too- see chart)^^^

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2004/12

^^^^Here this one has all sorts of links and comments regarding tsunami aid, the war, minimum wage, etc.. and the liberal whining about all of these, despite the FACT that republicans clearly work alot harder at solving these problems than liberals (some liberals, and yes I assume youre one of them) could possibly work on their whining techniques.. surely, these libs have whining down to an art...

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/famval.htm

Bush election results, in pertinence to family values^^^

Really,if you want to make any further blaket statements, please.. do a little research and make sure theyre accurate first :lol:

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

A couple isolated comparisons between either party hardly indicate the general attitudes or actions of either party. Your first and third links therefore don't prove much other than, well, a couple isolated comparisons, and are hardly indicative of most members of either party.

Sailor Moon wrote:
http://press.arrivenet.com/politics/article.php/480398.html

^^^Republicans generally fit the stereotype of their party: the vast majority is white and the group has the highest average annual household income of $54,000. Members of this self-identified group are more likely to favor increased defense spending and agree that men are better suited for politics than women. Strongly religious, Republicans are also more likely to have a gun in their home, and believe in the death penalty. Satisfied with their work and more comfortable with their financial situation than their counterparts, Republicans donate more to charities than either Democrats or Independents.

Gee, Sailor, do you think that maybe Republicans donate the most because they have the most to donate? Reblicans not only make the most, but also have the most disposable income; members of the Republican party tend to be older and thus through paying off student loans, among other things.

So say the average (which anyone with any statistical training knows is not a good figure to look at for this example; the median is far preferable for getting a feel for the "typical" person because extremes can't skew the scale) republican makes $25,000 in disposable annual income, and the average democrat/independent makes $15,000 in disposable annual income. These figures are just rough estimates, but they are just serving to illustrate a point, so let's not quibble with them (unless you have a source; then, by all means, quibble away). Say for instance the reblican donates $5,000 annually and the democrat/independent donates $4,000. According to your logic, Sailor, the republican is "more generous." According to, well, common sense, the person who is donating a larger portion of their disposable income is being more generous; they are giving a much larger portion of what they can.

Consider Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie's dad works screwing toothpaste tops onto toothpaste bottles, supporting the entire family; consequentially, they are very poor. Charlie's birthday gift every year is a chocolate bar, nothing more. It is everything that the family can scrape together. Other families give their kids tons of candy, but it is but a small portion of their earnings. Tell me, Sailor. Who is more generous to their kids, in terms of sheer fiscal charity? Charlie's parents, who give him everything they can, even though it isn't much? Or other parents, who give their kids but a fraction of what they can, but it is still a significant amount?

Your fourth link is someone saying that we should not give aid to countries because they weren't part of the Iraq war coalition. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that the disproportionately poor, rural people who were affected by the tsunami didn't have much say in whether their governments participated in the war refusing them aid is a pretty silly notion, and(even if they did have input, which the vast majority of those affected really do not) in my opinion choosing not to support a war on partially grounds which we now know to be nonexistent should not disqualify one from humanitarian aid. Wait, how exactly does this link prove that rebublicans are generous?

Sailor Moon wrote: Really,if you want to make any further blaket statements, please.. do a little research and make sure theyre accurate first
Really, if you want to prove a point, don't post links that don't really prove anything or go against the point you are trying to make.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Prole wrote: A couple isolated comparisons between either party hardly indicate the general attitudes or actions of either party. Your first and third links therefore don't prove much other than, well, a couple isolated comparisons, and are hardly indicative of most members of either party.

Sailor Moon wrote:
http://press.arrivenet.com/politics/article.php/480398.html

^^^Republicans generally fit the stereotype of their party: the vast majority is white and the group has the highest average annual household income of $54,000. Members of this self-identified group are more likely to favor increased defense spending and agree that men are better suited for politics than women. Strongly religious, Republicans are also more likely to have a gun in their home, and believe in the death penalty. Satisfied with their work and more comfortable with their financial situation than their counterparts, Republicans donate more to charities than either Democrats or Independents.

Gee, Sailor, do you think that maybe Republicans donate the most because they have the most to donate? Reblicans not only make the most, but also have the most disposable income; members of the Republican party tend to be older and thus through paying off student loans, among other things.

So what? Its about percentages of income donated. Even John Kerry gives close to nothing to chariries.. just enough to claim he donates to them.. such patheticism!

Quote: So say the average (which anyone with any statistical training knows is not a good figure to look at for this example; the median is far preferable for getting a feel for the "typical" person because extremes can't skew the scale) republican makes $25,000 in disposable annual income, and the average democrat/independent makes $15,000 in disposable annual income. These figures are just rough estimates, but they are just serving to illustrate a point, so let's not quibble with them (unless you have a source; then, by all means, quibble away). Say for instance the reblican donates $5,000 annually and the democrat/independent donates $4,000. According to your logic, Sailor, the republican is "more generous." According to, well, common sense, the person who is donating a larger portion of their disposable income is being more generous; they are giving a much larger portion of what they can.

Its not about how much disposable income they have, its what percentage of that disposable income is given. Republicans that are charitable know how to make sacrifices for the greater good, you know... So YES the republicans ARE more generous... you obviously didnt even look at the links, as the charts show the disposable incomes, etc..

Quote: Consider Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Charlie's dad works screwing toothpaste tops onto toothpaste bottles, supporting the entire family; consequentially, they are very poor. Charlie's birthday gift every year is a chocolate bar, nothing more. It is everything that the family can scrape together. Other families give their kids tons of candy, but it is but a small portion of their earnings. Tell me, Sailor. Who is more generous to their kids, in terms of sheer fiscal charity? Charlie's parents, who give him everything they can, even though it isn't much? Or other parents, who give their kids but a fraction of what they can, but it is still a significant amount?

Thats not the point. Charlies parents sacrifice to give him a chocolate bar. The other parents dont.

You and I, hypothetically, ave 100 dollars in disposable income every month. You have cable TV, I dont. I give 45 dollars a month to charity, while you give 15, and spend the rest on cable for YOU. Its not about how much is given, its about what percentage is given.

Quote: Your fourth link is someone saying that we should not give aid to countries because they weren't part of the Iraq war coalition. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that the disproportionately poor, rural people who were affected by the tsunami didn't have much say in whether their governments participated in the war refusing them aid is a pretty silly notion, and(even if they did have input, which the vast majority of those affected really do not) in my opinion choosing not to support a war on partially grounds which we now know to be nonexistent should not disqualify one from humanitarian aid. Wait, how exactly does this link prove that rebublicans are generous?

Thats not even the point. The point to that is, about the liberals whining that we dont do enough, or we do too much, and yet are against the war anyways.. its total BULL. Liberals whining about something they dont even support? I mean, come on.. they ought to just get a life. Plus with the Tsunami support, I mean jeez did Howard Stern or Michael Moore donate to the Tsunami support efforts, or just whine about how the government isnt doing enough or is doing too much, and yadda yadda all this "We need to focus on Americans" bullcrap...

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Really,if you want to make any further blaket statements, please.. do a little research and make sure theyre accurate first
Really, if you want to prove a point, don't post links that don't really prove anything or go against the point you are trying to make.

oh boo hoo. Post something that rebukes my point, or stop whining about it.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2246 Location: Edinburgh

I agree, Sailor, that it is percentage of disposable income of typical people that matters. So why you have neglected to address percentage of disposable income but only pointed out gross income and a couple individuals who frankly are not indicative of majority of either party; Bush and Kerry. Yes, Kerry's charity efforts are pretty pathetic. The same is true for Bush; in fact this is not a a partisan trait, but an almost universal trend of politicians.

Sailor Moon wrote: Republicans that are charitable know how to make sacrifices for the greater good, you know... So YES the republicans ARE more generous... you obviously didnt even look at the links, as the charts show the disposable incomes, etc..
I honestly did not see any links which addressed median disposable income and percentage of which goes to charity, only average gross income and that republicans give more in gross terms. If you have any links which address such factors, then by all means please post them; none that I have seen thus far have such factors. Because without such links, your arguements are pure rhetoric and thus completely baseless.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Prole wrote: I agree, Sailor, that it is percentage of disposable income of typical people that matters. So why you have neglected to address percentage of disposable income but only pointed out gross income and a couple individuals who frankly are not indicative of majority of either party; Bush and Kerry. Yes, Kerry's charity efforts are pretty pathetic. The same is true for Bush; in fact this is not a a partisan trait, but an almost universal trend of politicians.

Bush and Kerry are the only two, whose gross income was an issue.. the Illinois politicians example was very clear about dispensable income. Besides, Take a look at the Kerry-opoly.. of course he cant give as much, he sacrifices nothing!

Lets see, a 3.7 million dollar Pennsylvania home, another home in nantucket at 9.18 million, 6.9 million dollar home in Beacon Hill, MA, a ski retreat home in Idaho, 4.916 million, a 700,000 dollar boat, a 35 million dollar jet, an 8600 dollar motorcycle, A thousanb bucks for a friggin haircut, 175,000 dollar painting he sold, an 8,000 dollar bicycle, ANOTHER bucycle that cost 5,000 dollars...

Yet the poor guy could only donate, what? 3 thousand bucks? I am certain all his school loans are paid off...

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Republicans that are charitable know how to make sacrifices for the greater good, you know... So YES the republicans ARE more generous... you obviously didnt even look at the links, as the charts show the disposable incomes, etc..
I honestly did not see any links which addressed median disposable income and percentage of which goes to charity, only average gross income and that republicans give more in gross terms. If you have any links which address such factors, then by all means please post them; none that I have seen thus far have such factors. Because without such links, your arguements are pure rhetoric and thus completely baseless.

Whatever. Heres Bush's spending:

A ranch valued at 1.2 million dollars, in Crawford Texas, and he paid less than a million for it.

http://lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=2053

He also owns a yacht and a pickup truck.

http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/printthread.php?t=29829

But wait! The yacht is not PRIVATE PROPERTY, its PRESIDENTIAL, JUST LIKE THE JET!... so no deal..

Sorry, but the proof is in the pudding...

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Sailor, I cant agree with you. Im sorry. I dont want to argue politics in this board to much. To me they seem pro-birth not pro-life based on their persepective of how to erradicate poverty.

Their attitude of dont reward laziness reward hard work, is something i dont agree on. i dont want to get into it that much though. It would take to long and bring the debate to far away from abortion for now.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

jlrobe wrote: Sailor, I cant agree with you. Im sorry. I dont want to argue politics in this board to much. To me they seem pro-birth not pro-life based on their persepective of how to erradicate poverty.

Their attitude of dont reward laziness reward hard work, is something i dont agree on. i dont want to get into it that much though. It would take to long and bring the debate to far away from abortion for now.

Sooo... my logic has dissuaded you from continuing the very thread YOU started???? Well, thats nice!

"dont reward laziness"- is right.

Proof again, that when you make lazy generalizations, some hard worker will come along and show you how completely and utterly wrong you are, as usual.

jlrobe · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 118

Sailor Moon wrote: jlrobe wrote: Sailor, I cant agree with you. Im sorry. I dont want to argue politics in this board to much. To me they seem pro-birth not pro-life based on their persepective of how to erradicate poverty.

Their attitude of dont reward laziness reward hard work, is something i dont agree on. i dont want to get into it that much though. It would take to long and bring the debate to far away from abortion for now.

Sooo... my logic has dissuaded you from continuing the very thread YOU started???? Well, thats nice!

"dont reward laziness"- is right.

Proof again, that when you make lazy generalizations, some hard worker will come along and show you how completely and utterly wrong you are, as usual.

Not in the slightest. I started a thread mistakingly. I really should and perhaps will move it to the political board.

I dont make lazy generalizations, I start debates. sometimes I start debates that are not appropriate.
Anyhow, if you want me to rebut you that badly, I suppose I can move this to the political board. I really would have no problem doing that.

Your logic didnt disuade me. No ones "logic" can ever disuade me t leave an argument. you could have replied with complete nonsense, (which some of it sorta it), but I chose to not continue it on my own. If you really want, I will give you credit for "winning" this argument if you like. I just dont feel like continuing it here.

Hecatomb · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 46

This is an abortion forum, not a bash Republicans topic, this should be moved and preffbly locked, it's bullcrap what republicans have to put up with..

"Name me some Republicans that donate to chairty!"
*Names some*
"A few individuals don't matter!"
:roll:
"What has the Republican party as a whole done for the community?!"
*Links to some*
"Well ofcourse they can do that! They're rich!"

Yes, because Lord knows they shop at Wal-Mart and live in trailors because they're soooo rich.. :?

You only have a problem with the Republicans because you're jealous. You're jealous because you're a self-serving, narscisitic moron, who can't understand what motivates people who despite having less money, less popularity, and less motivation.. STILL fight the good fight for the concerns of thier family, thier God, and thier country..

You know why? Because they make themselves that way.. it's something called effort..

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

:lol:

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 22910 Location: ZzZzZzZz

ye should identify the main republican pro life impulses before analyzing the group as a whole.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

jlrobe wrote: Republicans always seemed more pro birth than pro-life to me. i have several reasons why I believe this. They feel as long as you are born here, you have enough "opportunity" to make a good life for yourself. They have too much faith in the country they helped build, and undersestimate the effects of not having a stable home, in my opinion.

To be honest, it is sad that abortion is even a partisan topic. It should be split between both parties if you ask me. But it isnt.

Look again and you will find MANY religious democrats (like me) who are indeed pro life, and many republicans who are pro choice.

The reality is that the abortion issue is only discussed by the public, not by our national politicians. This issue will be decided by local legislatures, the national politicians, as they did in the 70's won't go near it and will let the Supreme Court figure it out.

AmericaFirst · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:

jlrobe wrote:

Their attitude of dont reward laziness reward hard work, is something i dont agree on. i dont want to get into it that much though. It would take to long and bring the debate to far away from abortion for now.

And it is this mindset (they we should "reward everyone equally") that is the EXACT reason people like myself vehemently oppose the liberal mindset so often associated with the "pro-choice" crowd.

Give people the "right" to choose abortion yet don't hold them accountable for the rest of their lives and lifestyles - liberalism at it's finest :roll:

AmericaFirst · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject:

Hecatomb wrote: This is an abortion forum, not a bash Republicans topic, this should be moved and preffbly locked, it's bullcrap what republicans have to put up with..

"Name me some Republicans that donate to chairty!"
*Names some*
"A few individuals don't matter!"
:roll:
"What has the Republican party as a whole done for the community?!"
*Links to some*
"Well ofcourse they can do that! They're rich!"

Yes, because Lord knows they shop at Wal-Mart and live in trailors because they're soooo rich.. :?

You only have a problem with the Republicans because you're jealous. You're jealous because you're a self-serving, narscisitic moron, who can't understand what motivates people who despite having less money, less popularity, and less motivation.. STILL fight the good fight for the concerns of thier family, thier God, and thier country..

You know why? Because they make themselves that way.. it's something called effort..

AMEN brother! My favorite two words that describe why I dislike liberals (and a LOT of Democrats) are "personal reponsibility" - FAR too few people think they should be held accountable for their actions these days... \/

Hecatomb · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 46

Exactly, if you're going to advocate freedom, do it right, freedom means never having to say you're sorry, freedom is a luxorey, a luxorey you have to work for..

I personaly would let abortion stay legal, and just tie the tubes of any woman who wanted an abortion, that way, she could not have children, she could still adopt, but no birth-children. That way, her genes lessen, clearly from an evolutionary staindpoint, if she makes bad descisions such as this, her kin will make bad descisions, everything we do follows us in our next generation's lineup, and there's a large probability history will repeat itself.

So, for the sake of human improvement, it's best they not be allowed to reproduce from that point on, and I don't mind the abortion in itself, because sense that child would've been born with those infrior genes ANYWAY, it's probably for the best..

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

When youre kids dont clean their rooms, we will see who gets rewarded..

Not the kids...

And when the parents dont do their jobs at their place of employment.. should they get rewarded a bonus? Probably not..

Should we give Nobel Peace Prizes to people who lay on a couch and watch soaps all day, simply because they say "Free Tibet"???

Heck no.

Anyways, hard work really does pay off, and forcing someone else to do that work for you, even if you DO get a monthly check, is hardly what I would consider a reward.

BUT.... I certainly dont want my kid to go without food, shelter, clothing, or proper medical care simply because he wouldnt clean his room.. I'm not going to take his food away or his clothing, or his room for the night.. I'm also not going to give him anything more than what he absolutely needs...

Theres a difference between granting welfare to people who are willing to work, and unable, and giving "quality of life" monetary handouts (these are what pays for the stuff other than food shelter clothing, and medical) to people who are perfectly capable of working, and refuse to. There are alot of them who refuse to, but most of the people on welfare DO work, or go to school, or have a family to feed, or are simply unable due to sickness or injury.

Now.. Please. Can we stop the generalizations? We really dont WANT anyone to have a poor quality of life, but its not us who sets the bar. Tell it to the lazy bums who basically steal the welfare from the people who really need it most.