Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Social Issues vs. "Real Issues" Options · View
x3holly
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:16:21 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/9/2010
Posts: 15
Location: United States
When you're considering who you're going to vote into any form of office how much do you consider social issues (ex: gay marriage) vs "important issues" (ex: the economy).

Now, I'm not saying social issues aren't important, because they are. But I've found myself leaning toward Romney this year because I actually have faith in his economic and job plans, even though I completely disagree with him on things like gay marriage and women's rights.

What's your two cents?
seeker4
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:21:50 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 3,596
Location: Gone walkabout, Canada
Social issues are real/important issues to me. How we treat and respect each other is as important as how we make money and protect the environment. I wouldn't sacrifice the social issues for the economic ones, esp. since they sometimes dovetail (e.g.medicare, welfare have both social and economic components). Fortunately, I'm in Canada where we have 4 real choices (Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green) in most regions and 5 in Quebec (there's a Quebec only nationalist party that runs federally). It's not perfect and the system still favours the 3 status quo parties (the first three that I listed) but it reduces the likelihood of having to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (I vote Green routinely now that they are a contender). The US system really needs to develop some stronger third and fourth parties to shake things up.

Stories that satisfy about people seeking satisfaction

Satisfaction in the Park

Satisfaction in the Library
sprite
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:29:59 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,668
Location: My Tower, United States
x3holly wrote:
When you're considering who you're going to vote into any form of office how much do you consider social issues (ex: gay marriage) vs "important issues" (ex: the economy).

Now, I'm not saying social issues aren't important, because they are. But I've found myself leaning toward Romney this year because I actually have faith in his economic and job plans, even though I completely disagree with him on things like gay marriage and women's rights.

What's your two cents?


personally, to me, social issues ARE the important issues. gay marriage, for one. education, women's rights, civil rights of any kind, health care, the enviornment... to me, those actually supercede economic issues when i place my vote, which is why i'm voting for the President and not Mr. Romney.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:35:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
x3holly wrote:
When you're considering who you're going to vote into any form of office how much do you consider social issues (ex: gay marriage) vs "important issues" (ex: the economy).

Now, I'm not saying social issues aren't important, because they are. But I've found myself leaning toward Romney this year because I actually have faith in his economic and job plans, even though I completely disagree with him on things like gay marriage and women's rights.

What's your two cents?


Romney's lack of candor about his social plans is indicative of his general honesty and thus bring his economic plans into question. The problem is that Romney campaigned for MA governor by telling everyone he was a moderate on social issues and once elected decided he wanted to be President and so started taking obnoxious positions on social issues for no other reason than to pander to the right wing of the GOP.

I really don't know what Mittens would do on gay marriage and the fact is that neither does he. The only constancy in his social issues has been his lack of consistency. In fact he was off trying to tell gay rights organizations he was with them as recently as last week. But he won't speak on the record.

His economic plans are more of the same. He makes strong commitments to costly programs that are popular but refuses to explain how he would pay for them. Well apart from denying he has 'firm' plans do do any specific unpopular action.

Balancing the budget sounds really nice in theory, so does a $5 trillion tax cut, but where does the money come to pay for both?

More particularly, Mitt claims he will increase growth by reducing taxes which he will pay for by 'closing loopholes' which means he will be cutting some taxes but raising others. He says that this will be revenue neutral, so there will be no net tax cut (unless we believe in the tax cut fairy that Bush I, Bush II and Reagan claimed would balance their budgets but never appeared). So if there is no net tax cut, how does that create growth?

Mittens talks out of both sides of his mouth. Republicans know that which is why almost none were enthusiastic about him as a candidate. The only reason he got the nod was that all the alternatives were far worse. The guy whose highest position was running a Pizza restaurant who turned out to have a sexual harassment issue, the visibly crazy ideologues like Bachman and Gingrich.

Guest
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:58:01 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
For a lot of people it HAS to be the economic issues right now. They can't afford to give two shits whether gays can marry or civil rights or any other kinds of rights. If they can't put a roof over their heads and food in their own mouths or their kids mouths, the consensus is screw them, I need a job a place to lay my head and some food.
DLizze
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 6:29:52 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
Anyone who thinks there is a disconnect between "social" issues and "real" issues is merely fooling himself by looking for simple answers to complex problems. The current world economic woes are the direct result of ignoring "social" issues, and striving for short term economic gain. When countries act to improve social conciousness, by improving conditions for their lowest classes, their entire ecomony prospers.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
ByronLord
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:11:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
DLizze wrote:
Anyone who thinks there is a disconnect between "social" issues and "real" issues is merely fooling himself by looking for simple answers to complex problems. The current world economic woes are the direct result of ignoring "social" issues, and striving for short term economic gain. When countries act to improve social conciousness, by improving conditions for their lowest classes, their entire ecomony prospers.


True, but I would class those as being economic issues rather than social.

What I find rather bad about US politics is that it is considered acceptable to pick on a class of voters and demonize them. In the past it was black people, then gays and most recently it is Latinos. They don't go after them directly of course, they find some sub-group to attack, for blacks it was 'welfare queens' and now for Latinos it is 'illegal immigrants'. But these are merely dog whistles to prejudice.

More interesting is the reason why they take this approach. A government of the 1% by the 1% for the 1% can't get elected if that is all they offer. So they have to offer a hate plank to attract the angry white male vote.



Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:20:55 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,412
Location: United States
It isn't a question of "social issues or real issues." Social issues are real issues. People's individual rights and freedom are important. Being able to decide what happens to my body is important. Equal treatment under the law for all people is important. These aren't false issues, they're very real. Are people so self fixated and short sighted that they think the only thing worth voting for is money?

DLizze
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 9:25:03 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,552
Until I have the biologic ability to conceive, carry to term, and bear a child, I haven't the right to an opinion as to what any woman may or may not do with or to her body, nor does any male.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:22:27 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,412
Location: United States
DLizze wrote:
Until I have the biologic ability to conceive, carry to term, and bear a child, I haven't the right to an opinion as to what any woman may or may not do with or to her body, nor does any male.


Thank you.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:05:35 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
I don't believe there is anyone that agrees with every stance that either of the two main parties plank on.

As far as social issues go ie; Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, as well as the war on drugs I think that the majority are states rights issues. Unfortunately, it appears the Federal Government wants to keep their noses into individual states business. I actually don't mind having healthcare for all of our citizens. Gay rights for marriage should be a freedom not a prohibition. The war on drugs is a fiasco....We lost....If a person wants to do drugs that should be their individual right. If they commit a crime to obtain their vice then let the penalty ride. We could have very easily spent the money for the war, on treatment, which could be covered under the citizens health plans.

As far as economic concern's, I feel that the free market is the only way out of our current situation. The regulation and tariffs placed on out going and incoming commerce is far too unequal. Any time you have regulation there is a government entity involved. I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be any. However, there are many things that CAN be deregulated or shifted to other departments.

We have military bases all over the world. We are still active in a few conflicts as well. I'm thinking pull our troops out of EVERYWHERE and bring them home. Let them defend our own shores. Half the reason that we are in HOT SPOTS is because WE created them or have in the very least have tried to bully countries into our way of thinking. I see that as bad as a Few Conservative people trying to tell it's citizens whether or not they can be married....None of our business.

As long as people want to live free and do no harm to others then let them live their own way.

I do find a few things about my political party of choice that are not in line with my way of thinking but they seem to be a better alternative to the two main parties that have basically cornered the market on exposure. I don't see anything FREE about that.....

Please consider America's Third largest political party come election day.......

If you want to know more please go to http://www.lp.org/..... You may find that they could cover and solve a good many of our social and economic issues.

Smaller government, Lower taxes, and personal liberty.....What could possibly be wrong with that......
ByronLord
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 7:00:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 754
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Irishdandy wrote:
I don't believe there is anyone that agrees with every stance that either of the two main parties plank on.

As far as social issues go ie; Gay marriage, abortion, welfare, as well as the war on drugs I think that the majority are states rights issues. Unfortunately, it appears the Federal Government wants to keep their noses into individual states business. I actually don't mind having healthcare for all of our citizens. Gay rights for marriage should be a freedom not a prohibition. The war on drugs is a fiasco....We lost....If a person wants to do drugs that should be their individual right. If they commit a crime to obtain their vice then let the penalty ride. We could have very easily spent the money for the war, on treatment, which could be covered under the citizens health plans.

As far as economic concern's, I feel that the free market is the only way out of our current situation. The regulation and tariffs placed on out going and incoming commerce is far too unequal. Any time you have regulation there is a government entity involved. I'm certainly not saying there shouldn't be any. However, there are many things that CAN be deregulated or shifted to other departments.

We have military bases all over the world. We are still active in a few conflicts as well. I'm thinking pull our troops out of EVERYWHERE and bring them home. Let them defend our own shores. Half the reason that we are in HOT SPOTS is because WE created them or have in the very least have tried to bully countries into our way of thinking. I see that as bad as a Few Conservative people trying to tell it's citizens whether or not they can be married....None of our business.


'States rights' is always invoked in a losing cause. It was originally invoked by the Southern Democrats to defend racist segregation. Ie the principle that a black person should have no rights at all. This was and is what is meant by 'states rights' - the 'right' of states to take rights away from a minority.

The Southern Democrats jumped party after the signing of the civil rights act. Nixon welcomed them with open arms and his Southern strategy. The modern Republican party has different targets for hate but if you believe in freedom of the individual then which tier of government is responsible for repression is immaterial. The original idea of the Bill of Rights was that the Federal state would be the ultimate guarantor of individual rights. Though that vision took eighty years to properly take hold.

The war on drugs is somewhat different, there are federal laws and there are state laws and both were passed in an atmosphere of fear and moral panic. The biggest problem with the war on drugs however is not the effect on the US but what the profits of drug trafficking have done in other countries, particularly Mexico and Columbia and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was almost entirely financed from money that came from providing security for the drug trade. The drug trade is what keeps the Taliban going - so much for Islamic principle!

As for the military, the US military is so large that there is absolutely no point to having 80% troops unless they are stationed in other countries. At home they can protect the US from an invasion by Canada. The idea of an invasion of the US by China or Russia is rather silly. So bringing the troops home makes no sense, the real choice is whether to spend so much on the military at all.

During the cold war NATO faced the forces of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Today the non-Soviet Warsaw pact countries are all on our side, so are most of the ex-Soviet countries. But Romney thinks that the US needs to increase military spending to fight an enemy that does not exist and has not existed for over twenty years.

The change that has come in US foreign policy under Obama is that the US is no longer trying to tell other countries what their government should be. The US is not coddling dictators like Gadaffi or Saddam Hussein or Mubarak any more. Russia is still in that game but of their remaining allies, only Syria and Iran threaten US or NATO interests and they do so because of geography more than anything else. The US, like the other NATO countries has a treaty obligation to defend Turkey as Syria descends into civil war.

The US can certainly cut military spending, it is currently spending more than the entire rest of the planet put together. The US can certainly draw down its foreign bases as well. Contrary to US belief, they are really not popular in the countries they are situated either.

Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:11:43 AM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,233
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
The social issues are important to me. I am Pro choice, pro guns, pro gay rights, pro farming rights, pro legalized weed, pro individual rights. I dislike organized religions, HSUS & PETA. Like many others I float somewhere in the middle. I had to choose the most important things to me. I wish that we real 3rd option.(I agree with most of the libertarian ideas, but I am realistic enough to know that a vote for Gary Johnson was a wasted voted.)


myself
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:20:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
I have no faith that either political party has the answers or that they are even concerned about human issues beyond issue mongering for votes at this stage in the campaign game.

Let us give the RIGHTS to the STATES and let the people closest to the issues address the problems as individually and humanly possible. It is my opinion that the federal government cannot blanket these particular problems without great waste and innocents falling through the holes. We the American People have the resources, if not satisfied, to address any unfair state practice with the courts of law under the constitution. Only then should these issues go to the federal government where they should be dealt with and settled under the constitution.

In essence, it is easier to vote in proper candidates and vote out stupid candidates and control smaller government which gives us the people back the control and yes also makes us the responsible party which I'm not sure most people want but I believe would be easier than we think by just doing the right things for the country as a whole.

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:06:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
'States rights' is always invoked in a losing cause. It was originally invoked by the Southern Democrats to defend racist segregation. Ie the principle that a black person should have no rights at all. This was and is what is meant by 'states rights' - the 'right' of states to take rights away from a minority.

Everything in life evolves. Your statement may be partially correct in the case you stated. However, There were other reasons why the south tried to break away. Free Trade was one of them. Also, now days, states rights would allow for the People of the state to decide how their State government can decide to operate. Example Gay marriage. Unfortunately, my state voted it down where as other states voted it in. Shouldn't the people decide how it ought to be? By allowing an individual state to make decisions, you keep the Fed Gov in check. Don't you think also that if choices were given to individual states the federal government could see what the populace wants. They make to many decisions for the whole of our country.

The Southern Democrats jumped party after the signing of the civil rights act. Nixon welcomed them with open arms and his Southern strategy. The modern Republican party has different targets for hate but if you believe in freedom of the individual then which tier of government is responsible for repression is immaterial. The original idea of the Bill of Rights was that the Federal state would be the ultimate guarantor of individual rights. Though that vision took eighty years to properly take hold.

I agree about the fed being the final say or the boundary for all of the states to have to adhere to. However, Things that can be easily decided by an individual state will show the lawmakers in DC exactly the flavor the majority of the country prefers. The Current two party system isn't allowing for THE PEOPLE to decide. It is no different than only having two choices in say Coke or Pepsi products. What if a large portion of the People want Tootie Fruitie which isn't offered by either company. If the companies can see that there are a good many supporters of that flavor they could change their stance about offering it.

The war on drugs is somewhat different, there are federal laws and there are state laws and both were passed in an atmosphere of fear and moral panic. The biggest problem with the war on drugs however is not the effect on the US but what the profits of drug trafficking have done in other countries, particularly Mexico and Columbia and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was almost entirely financed from money that came from providing security for the drug trade. The drug trade is what keeps the Taliban going - so much for Islamic principle!

If drugs were legalized then the country could manufacture their own thus leaving the Drug lords out in the cold. We wouldn't need the black market influx of their product, eliminating their role significantly on the entire world. The USA is the number one customer of illegal drugs. Hell we are the leader in Prescription drugs too. Alcohol and prescription drugs each, are killing more of our people then ANY of the illicit drugs combined. Why doesn't the government try to get a handle on those? Because they are legal and they are using them, that's why.

As for the military, the US military is so large that there is absolutely no point to having 80% troops unless they are stationed in other countries. At home they can protect the US from an invasion by Canada. The idea of an invasion of the US by China or Russia is rather silly. So bringing the troops home makes no sense, the real choice is whether to spend so much on the military at all.

I didn't make my point very clear about bringing home ALL of our troops. I certainly don't fear an invasion. However, We could eliminate Border Patrol and TSA altogether. I can't think off the top of my head other roles that our military could be used for. Certainly in Aiding our country in times of disaster. We could also cut spending drastically that way. With the amount of resources spent on maintaining our military in other lands (they aren't paying us to be there BTW) We could use those funds for a better purpose. Like medicare/Medicaid and infrastructure. We have the best technology for killing people than anyone. We can still kill anyone we want with a military that is 1/3 reduced. I could go on and on....

During the cold war NATO faced the forces of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. Today the non-Soviet Warsaw pact countries are all on our side, so are most of the ex-Soviet countries. But Romney thinks that the US needs to increase military spending to fight an enemy that does not exist and has not existed for over twenty years.

That is a great point.....I don't like that either. It's one of the main reasons I don't want him in office.

The change that has come in US foreign policy under Obama is that the US is no longer trying to tell other countries what their government should be. But it also seems he isn't supporting very well the people we have placed in our embassies.

The US is not coddling dictators like Gadaffi or Saddam Hussein or Mubarak any more. I beg to differ. It is only out in the open that this seems to be the case. If we have an interest in these lands then there is a lot of finagling going on that we have no clue about.

Russia is still in that game but of their remaining allies, only Syria and Iran threaten US or NATO interests and they do so because of geography more than anything else. The US, like the other NATO countries has a treaty obligation to defend Turkey as Syria descends into civil war.

NATO? I fully believe that the need for NATO is no longer necessary. Allowing these countries to fight it out amongst themselves would solve a lot of problems and be much cheaper for the USA. It's none of our business if the Syrian Government wants to kill it's own people. I'm not saying I don't feel for the people being killed but it is the way of Human existence. It certainly isn't any of our business. If we got out of NATO, those treaties could be made null. How do you think countries come into existence? They invade and take. Our great nation was built in this very fasion as was every other country in the world.

The US can certainly cut military spending, it is currently spending more than the entire rest of the planet put together. The US can certainly draw down its foreign bases as well. Contrary to US belief, they are really not popular in the countries they are situated either.

INDEED

Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:31:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
Well, I'm kinda dumbfounded that a female would reckon Romney a probable choice. But, oh well.

Romney, and his "ideals" seem to be prone to the highest bidder, and whoever will grant him his ego trip.

Yes, corporate sponsorship dwells close behind the curtain, but I just can't stand knowing that soon, I'll have to watch people pining for an encore for such bullshit openly.

(flashback to Bush, Jr.) So, if that's what Amerika wants then, that's what it will get. Seems Americans rise to their greatest potential amidst turmoil, so either way, we'll get passed the speed bump one way or another.
She
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:48:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,162
Location: Europe
chefkathleen wrote:
For a lot of people it HAS to be the economic issues right now. They can't afford to give two shits whether gays can marry or civil rights or any other kinds of rights. If they can't put a roof over their heads and food in their own mouths or their kids mouths, the consensus is screw them, I need a job a place to lay my head and some food.


Maybe. However, those are 'just' problems we are facing.. social issues, what we stand for, what we believe in..defined us, is who we are.
Social issues are real issues, economic issues are problems we are facing with..
ArtMan
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:06:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
All you have to do is look at Romney's actual political record to see that he has been very open and progressive on women's issues. He's extremely moderate politically and far from conservative which is why he has to play to the conservative portion of the Republican Party in order to shore up their vote and keep them from going independent. Obama plays the same game in campaign rhetoric. In actuality, Obama's first four years were not near as liberal as his original campaign played him up to be. He actually is still keeping many Bush polices in place. The political reality is that there isn't that much difference between Obama and Romney.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:11:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
"Seems Americans rise to their greatest potential amidst turmoil, so either way, we'll get passed the speed bump one way or another."

Yeah, I quoted myself, deal with it.



Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:16:25 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
Yes, he's very "progressive."



Here sir, here's another shovel to progress with.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:27:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:28:19 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
And?
Guest
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 6:49:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
She wrote:


Maybe. However, those are 'just' problems we are facing.. social issues, what we stand for, what we believe in..defined us, is who we are.
Social issues are real issues, economic issues are problems we are facing with..



She,

Not everyone agrees on the same social issues. That is the problem with them and why they are issues and not needs. It's almost as if it's not the social issues anymore but who is arguing for them. I'd like to think that we can live in an all inclusive society. Unfortunately that isn't reality. We can argue all day long about gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc....etc....etc...

You can't legislate what someone believes. All you can do is pass a law that tells the offended party to deal with it. If we live in a true democracy, then the majority rules. The problem then is that whomever is left out gets the shaft. Is that not the case in all society? There will forever be a social issue if the minority has a strong voice but no votes to carry that out.


ChefKathleen makes a very valid point. How can someone argue over dog fighting and fur coats when we have our own children without shoes and housing. We need to get a handle on the immediate before we can solve issues that don't affect the whole. As strongly as I feel I am Pro-Gay Marriage, the issue isn't going to go anywhere. There shouldn't be a law about marriage anyway.

Economics.....The whole is affected by that.......The more we borrow and the more we print, the less valuable our dollar becomes. If the dollar drops in value then things cost more. The effect is staggering if not kept in check. We have to get a grip on spending. We can't implement policies that cost more because they will keep costing more. The larger the government becomes the more costly it becomes. As hard as it is to face, it is the reality.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, November 01, 2012 9:40:37 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Irishdandy wrote:

Not everyone agrees on the same social issues. That is the problem with them and why they are issues and not needs. It's almost as if it's not the social issues anymore but who is arguing for them. I'd like to think that we can live in an all inclusive society. Unfortunately that isn't reality. We can argue all day long about gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc....etc....etc...


Nor do we believe in the same economic solutions. I agree that economics are the most prevalent issue this time around, and the different approaches frame the choice. Also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, many of the so-called 'social issues' very much affect economics, and likewise. Saying that social issues shouldn't be dealt with until the "real issues" are sorted out assumes incorrectly that several types of legislation somehow can't be simultaneous. I suspect that those who care somewhat less about gay marriage are perhaps not gay.

Quote:

You can't legislate what someone believes.


I wish christian conservative activists and voters believed this. They'd spare the rest of us a lot of divisive bullshit.

She
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 8:59:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,162
Location: Europe
Irishdandy wrote:



She,

Not everyone agrees on the same social issues. That is the problem with them and why they are issues and not needs. It's almost as if it's not the social issues anymore but who is arguing for them. I'd like to think that we can live in an all inclusive society. Unfortunately that isn't reality. We can argue all day long about gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc....etc....etc...

You can't legislate what someone believes. All you can do is pass a law that tells the offended party to deal with it. If we live in a true democracy, then the majority rules. The problem then is that whomever is left out gets the shaft. Is that not the case in all society? There will forever be a social issue if the minority has a strong voice but no votes to carry that out.


ChefKathleen makes a very valid point. How can someone argue over dog fighting and fur coats when we have our own children without shoes and housing. We need to get a handle on the immediate before we can solve issues that don't affect the whole. As strongly as I feel I am Pro-Gay Marriage, the issue isn't going to go anywhere. There shouldn't be a law about marriage anyway.

Economics.....The whole is affected by that.......The more we borrow and the more we print, the less valuable our dollar becomes. If the dollar drops in value then things cost more. The effect is staggering if not kept in check. We have to get a grip on spending. We can't implement policies that cost more because they will keep costing more. The larger the government becomes the more costly it becomes. As hard as it is to face, it is the reality.


If we can agree that social issues define us as person, than we can say that we can judge our leaders based on that. Who we are is the key how we are going to deal with problems. Economic issue is a problem that needs solution a bit deeper than just healing and dealing with simptoms and somehow I trust more democratic oriented politicans and their way of solving my economic problems because of how they are dealing with social issues. And that is why I think soccial issues are real issues.
Do I make any sense?
Guest
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:55:56 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
Yes. The great Kanye West once said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Short sighted nonetheless, the issue is that Republicans, no matter how you slice and dice history, currently care about one colour, Green. Most people want to pass the sanctimonious buck and say people matter most, or that you can't take it with you. Pretty much. You can't take it with you, but there is one thing that matters most to some, and it's what you can't take with you.

Which would matter most on your death bed? Knowing you helped your fellow man or knowing you helped your self to a nice slice of pie? Well, why can't I enjoy my pie without having to worry about your slice, or respecting the fact that you should even have a wiff? My pie helps you see how good it can be and should make you wanna get your own. Those who serve themselves eat first.

Good to know that our intended leaders always come from a place that always lacked need.

Guest
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 10:59:16 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
I wish christian conservative activists and voters believed this. They'd spare the rest of us a lot of divisive bullshit.

I agree. Truly. However, wouldn't you agree that the super liberal folks do the same thing?


If we can agree that social issues define us as person, than we can say that we can judge our leaders based on that. Who we are is the key how we are going to deal with problems. Economic issue is a problem that needs solution a bit deeper than just healing and dealing with symptoms and somehow I trust more democratic oriented politicians and their way of solving my economic problems because of how they are dealing with social issues. And that is why I think social issues are real issues.
Do I make any sense?

She, you make sense. For a lot of what you say I agree with too. It just seems to me that through a stronger economy, we can PAY for many of the social issues that are on the table. Why don't we see what the majority wants. I'd really just like to get a handle on Taxing and spending. We are so far in debt. I have kids that will have grand kids that are still going to be paying on the money borrowed and squandered. I'm blaming Both parties for that......There are so many laws right now that address social issues. I know that there could be more but they can wait. I commend you on your argument and your want for these issues to be dealt with. For now, perhaps donating your time and resources as an individual toward helping those that are less fortunate would give you a little more satisfaction about who you are as an individual when you are in your last days. You seem to have a tender heart and that is needed in today's world.

Guest
Posted: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:17:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,966
"Fast and Furious" Obama lied on American gun owners. I guess the only people that Obama thinks should own firearms are drug lords.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:18:59 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Irishdandy wrote:
I wish christian conservative activists and voters believed this. They'd spare the rest of us a lot of divisive bullshit.

I agree. Truly. However, wouldn't you agree that the super liberal folks do the same thing?


Not really. I see "the super liberal folks" promoting diversity and plurality on social issues. Religious conservatives often appear to live in a world where a society that doesn't unanimously adhere to their social values is therefore infringing upon them.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:46:03 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,416
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
LadyX wrote:


Not really. I see "the super liberal folk" promoting diversity and plurality on social issues. Religious conservatives often appear to live in a world where a society that doesn't unanimously adhere to their values is therefore infringing upon them.


In general, I agree. However, there are areas where the liberal movement is guilty. They are usually the ones who who attempt to enact laws based on the concept of 'social responsibility' whether that translates to attempting to ban smoking in ones own apartment as is being tried in some cities in ca, or ro find ways to fine or otherwise make life difficult for those who dont live the idyllic, healthy lifestyle that the left believes in. They are the ones who would ban guns even for law abiding citizens.

In my view, Hillary Clintons 'Village' was about as repressive a place as Bush sr. New World Order.

Seriously, i wish both parties would just worry about the roads and the economy and stop trying to tell us how we should live and what we should believe.

β€œIt is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


My New collaboration with Dirty _D is one I am extremely proud to offer:





Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.