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

Social Issues vs. "Real Issues" Options · View
Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:46:55 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
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.


I would then suggest, that the powers that be, put all the social issues that seem to plague our society, to the people. Make the citizenry part of the solution. Allow them to vote on all the issues. Let the people choose for OUR country what it is they want.....I don't want a government mandate telling me what to support or believe in or adhere to. I want a say in it and I think that most of our country would want that same courtesy.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:53:11 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,381
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.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


My Editors Choice Award Winning Stories.








LadyX
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:53:58 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Irishdandy wrote:
I would then suggest, that the powers that be, put all the social issues that seem to plague our society, to the people. Make the citizenry part of the solution. Allow them to vote on all the issues. Let the people choose for OUR country what it is they want.....I don't want a government mandate telling me what to support or believe in or adhere to. I want a say in it and I think that most of our country would want that same courtesy.


How do we not have that now? We have referendums for gay marriage and medicinal marijuana, as well as host of others. If you're referring to legislation like Obamacare, then your choice is to vote in those that pledge to repeal it. However, some social issues should be above election. Had civil rights for Black Americans been put to a vote in 1956 it would've failed miserably. Who would argue that a bigoted majority would be right in cases such as that?
Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 1:17:09 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
LadyX wrote:


How do we not have that now? We have referendums for gay marriage and medicinal marijuana, as well as host of others. If you're referring to legislation like Obamacare, then your choice is to vote in those that pledge to repeal it. However, some social issues should be above election. Had civil rights for Black Americans been put to a vote in 1956 it would've failed miserably. Who would argue that a bigoted majority would be right in cases such as that?



As far as the data that I have seen, Obama care is a joke and if put to the people would be repealed. Still, the idea behind a Democracy is the majority rules. We have become a government of dictatorship. As far as referendums go....They do not allow for the people to decide. Voting has become a lesser of the two evils. I want to have MY vote counted on Social issues.

Civil rights for ALL Americans, regardless of race, is a must. The implementation was in consideration for Black Americans but thank GOD that it referred to all Americans in it's final draft.

I am not voting for either of the two main parties. I'm a Libertarian.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 1:18:31 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,381
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
LadyX wrote:


How do we not have that now? We have referendums for gay marriage and medicinal marijuana, as well as host of others. If you're referring to legislation like Obamacare, then your choice is to vote in those that pledge to repeal it. However, some social issues should be above election. Had civil rights for Black Americans been put to a vote in 1956 it would've failed miserably. Who would argue that a bigoted majority would be right in cases such as that?


Thomas Jefferson wrote at length
about the tyranny of the mob. It was for just this reason that our government was formed as as represntitive republic rather than a true democracy, as John Adams desired. The truth is that it is far too easy to convince a majority that an injustice is morally right. These issues should be decided by impartial courts, not partisain legislative bodies.

“It is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


My Editors Choice Award Winning Stories.








myself
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:12:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
In regards to social issue, the difference between President Obama and Governor Romney is Obama believes social issue belongs to federal government for the most part while Romney believes social issue belongs to state governments for the most part.

I don't want social issue owned by federal government. It takes away the states rights to address more individual needs at a more successfully rate at a lower cost to the nation and disallows individual growth and understanding for all social issues. The other mandates and involves both federal government and every state's government in manpower and processing and forces involvement in all social issues regardless of needs.

Example -Romney has stated he backed Freedom of Choice for the abortion issue while he was governor regardless of his personal belief because that was the stand the majority took in the state he represented. It was his job to represent his state and he did so regardless of personal belief. A stellar employee if you ask me. Now as a candidate for president, he is afforded his personal Pro Life belief and should be in my opinion. Romney explains that as President of the United States his belief is just that, (his personal belief). His conviction for personal belief is so strong that he would over turn Roe vs Wade in order to give the right to decide this issue to individual states and so the individual people could realize their beliefs in this matter. What more can we asks for? We Americans should have no problem understanding Romney's rights to personal belief and the separation that must be accepted to have a democracy.

Open your eyes people and don't be afraid that we will return to the dark ages. Isn't it the causes that have affected change in this country and not the politicians? And if this is not true, it is a scary affair to think we are left to only the mercy of a few politicians in regards to these matters. I'm pretty sure if we want to, we can give federal government back the job that was intended under the rules of the constitution and preserve the rights of the people as was intended under the rules of the constitution which will free the majority and that will give all forms of government a mission that is possible and affordable and controllable.

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 10:29:04 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
myself wrote:
In regards to social issue, the difference between President Obama and Governor Romney is Obama believes social issue belongs to federal government for the most part while Romney believes social issue belongs to state governments for the most part.

I don't want social issue owned by federal government. It takes away the states rights to address more individual needs at a more successfully rate at a lower cost to the nation and disallows individual growth and understanding for all social issues. The other mandates and involves both federal government and every state's government in manpower and processing and forces involvement in all social issues regardless of needs.

Example -Romney has stated he backed Freedom of Choice for the abortion issue while he was governor regardless of his personal belief because that was the stand the majority took in the state he represented. It was his job to represent his state and he did so regardless of personal belief. A stellar employee if you ask me. Now as a candidate for president, he is afforded his personal Pro Life belief and should be in my opinion. Romney explains that as President of the United States his belief is just that, (his personal belief). His conviction for personal belief is so strong that he would over turn Roe vs Wade in order to give the right to decide this issue to individual states and so the individual people could realize their beliefs in this matter. What more can we asks for? We Americans should have no problem understanding Romney's rights to personal belief and the separation that must be accepted to have a democracy.

Open your eyes people and don't be afraid that we will return to the dark ages. Isn't it the causes that have affected change in this country and not the politicians? And if this is not true, it is a scary affair to think we are left to only the mercy of a few politicians in regards to these matters. I'm pretty sure if we want to, we can give federal government back the job that was intended under the rules of the constitution and preserve the rights of the people as was intended under the rules of the constitution which will free the majority and that will give all forms of government a mission that is possible and affordable and controllable.


We don't know who Romney is or what he believes. To believe he holds the same beliefs he had as governor of Massachusetts, then we have to conclude that he's a liar, since he's backtracked multiple times to say the he's now in favor of limiting abortions, and opposes almost the exact same health care system that he himself helped create and implement. You brought up Roe v. Wade and personal convictions. Well, there's really no question that he'll rely on his personal convictions to nominate Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice candidates, only one more of which might reverse Roe v. Wade altogether. That alone is reason enough for me to effort toward keeping that piece of shit out of office, as I'm not naive enough to believe that he'd somehow prioritize the beliefs of others over those that brought him to power and who he depends on as political agenda brokers.

You say we need to trust that we aren't going to go back to the dark ages. Well, one party clearly points in the backwards direction. Maybe not to all the way back to the Dark Ages, but certainly back to say, the 1950s. They seem to want that really badly, actually. So, no. I don't trust and will not vote for Republicans, based on everything that they readily own up to (pro-Life, for instance) and all that their values imply.
myself
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:32:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
LadyX wrote:


We don't know who Romney is or what he believes. To believe he holds the same beliefs he had as governor of Massachusetts, then we have to conclude that he's a liar, since he's backtracked multiple times to say the he's now in favor of limiting abortions, and opposes almost the exact same health care system that he himself helped create and implement. You brought up Roe v. Wade and personal convictions. Well, there's really no question that he'll rely on his personal convictions to nominate Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice candidates, only one more of which might reverse Roe v. Wade altogether. That alone is reason enough for me to effort toward keeping that piece of shit out of office, as I'm not naive enough to believe that he'd somehow prioritize the beliefs of others over those that brought him to power and who he depends on as political agenda brokers.

You say we need to trust that we aren't going to go back to the dark ages. Well, one party clearly points in the backwards direction. Maybe not to all the way back to the Dark Ages, but certainly back to say, the 1950s. They seem to want that really badly, actually. So, no. I don't trust and will not vote for Republicans, based on everything that they readily own up to (pro-Life, for instance) and all that their values imply.


Dear LadyX,

It was Romney's job to represent the Right to Choose people (the majority) in Massachusetts and he did so. He did not say these were his beliefs. He also helped create and implement a health care system we the majority of americans asked for. Again, he did what was asked and represented the majority of american people. And again, he did not say he agreed with this plan but did do his job as our representative. It is now the majority of american people saying they don't want Obama Care and so Romney must represent the people again. What more do we want from a politician?

I must ask another question. Do you think government should mandate social and religious issues? -and if so, how exactly do you propose we come to the conclusions.



Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
myself
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:02:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
Dear LadyX, Ironically, I held the almost exact same views that you hold now when I was your age. I tell you this not to say we are the same but to show that I understand your concerns. I ADMIRE YOU and wish you a way to happiness be it political or personal and thank you for the beautiful concern that is you : )

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
tazznjazz
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 12:23:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
We can safely say that Gov. Romney believes in getting elected...After that is anyone's guess, but if he feels beholden to his backers and super packs, we are looking at four years of a ultra conservative agenda, another round of non-regulated wall street running free and easy, then looking for taxpayer bailouts, Pollution standards rolled back to contribute to still more global warming and the one percent of the richest people having ninety five percent of the influence on governmental decisions.

If Gov. Romney is elected his cabinet will be the best indication of how he intends to govern, and if he returns Pres. Bush's main players [Karl Rove is a major backer] to the white house, god bless us all. His pick for V.P. is scary enough, but we can bet the farm Gov. Christy will remain in Jersey.argue
ByronLord
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 1:25:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
If Romney was elected he would run the country just like he ran companies he acquired at Bain.

That is he would borrow vast amounts of money using the assets of the company as collateral, pay the money out to himself and his pals as 'dividends' (i.e. tax cuts) and make someone else was on the hook to repay the loans when the inevitable default occurred.

Why expect a man who got rich by being a dishonest crooked asshole to act any different as President?

Guest
Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:45:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
Is not our current administration borrowing money? I think so and at an alarming rate. As a matter of fact the collateral of the company is our great grandchildren. We are the asset that our government uses to secure loans. The dividends aren't going to go to America. They are going to go to CHINA. We are defaulting on our loans. We can't cover the interest rate.

It is all of us that are on the hook to pay off these loans. If you couldn't meet the interest payments on your credit would you think the lender would continue to loan you money? ......Hmmmmmm....I don't think so......Why do you suppose China is letting us continue to borrow?


That is a legitimate question BTW.....Why is China financing all of our shit? What do they stand to gain by lending money that the borrower can't afford to pay back? Do you suppose there will ever be an end to the loaning? Seems to me there would have to be. Why is our great nation in debt to begin with? Why would we finance stuff we cannot afford?


ANYBODY......ANYBODY ???????
tazznjazz
Posted: Monday, November 05, 2012 4:34:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
It has been posted on the forums that the US went from a lender to a borrower nation during the Reagan years.

The economy is global now and if the dollar is weak it is reflected in world markets and all nations feel the effects so China props up our dollar and loans to us to it's own advantage.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:26:10 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Irishdandy wrote:
Is not our current administration borrowing money? I think so and at an alarming rate. As a matter of fact the collateral of the company is our great grandchildren. We are the asset that our government uses to secure loans. The dividends aren't going to go to America. They are going to go to CHINA. We are defaulting on our loans. We can't cover the interest rate.

It is all of us that are on the hook to pay off these loans. If you couldn't meet the interest payments on your credit would you think the lender would continue to loan you money? ......Hmmmmmm....I don't think so......Why do you suppose China is letting us continue to borrow?


That is a legitimate question BTW.....Why is China financing all of our shit? What do they stand to gain by lending money that the borrower can't afford to pay back? Do you suppose there will ever be an end to the loaning? Seems to me there would have to be. Why is our great nation in debt to begin with? Why would we finance stuff we cannot afford?


ANYBODY......ANYBODY ???????


China owns about 10 percent of the total national debt, down from 12 percent two years ago. Japan comes in second in terms of other nations. By far the greatest holder of American debt is the American people and it's own institutions. It's a problem that needs to be addressed, but it's not as if China is going to own this country lock, stock, and barrel based on an investment portfolio. By the way, if they decided to just stop buying debt, they would face a firestorm back home; the relationship is symbiotic. China and the US are to some extent married financially on this deal. Our credit would suffer terribly if they stopped buying our debt, but theirs would too, as there's no better place for them to put it, and there's a skeptical Chinese public just waiting to pounce if all of a sudden, trillions of dollars later, the government decided the US wasn't a favorable investment option anymore. Nobody would get out cleanly, so neither side will anytime soon.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:16:46 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,327
I believe China would be fine as long as we continue to pay back the money. After all, it would probably take 100 years. This is just a guestimation on my part, but for me it feels and seems hopeless. Sigh


I don't like being beholden to anybody.
_mal_
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:14:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/27/2010
Posts: 191
Location: Somewhere, United States
Things that don't affect my ability to survive don't register on my radar. Most social issues fall in the category of "doesn't affect my ability to survive". So, I'm usually very permissive on social issues.

Let people do as they may.
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.