User Tag List

First 1220212223243272 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 798

  1. #211
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Mitt Romney's first comments on the election just demonstrate what I'm talking about.

    Aside from coming across like the sorest loser in my memory of presidential elections, he's basically venting outrage that Obama won because he proposed policies that were appealing to various demographics other than old white men. What the hell was Obama supposed to do? Do we need a moratorium on policies that appeal to certain demographics more than others? Given how old some of these stances are, can we presume Obama really bought anyone off instead of just continuing to promote positions he thought were justified? Of all the crazy things about the way conservatives have reacted to Obama, the craziest is how thinly they've veiled their prejudices. The Fox News team have barely suppressed their sorrow every time they've mentioned that Obama won with minority votes. And how about single women?! People have been saying some really vicious things about the huge portion of single women that voted Obama. That sort of ugliness is the problem for the Republican party, and rather than addressing it, William Bennet's article seems to indicate obliviousness to it.
    This was from the previous election, but does anyone remember this?...

    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2007/...ulter-gardner/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ann Coulter
    If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
    It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?”
    Don't know if she has any new dreams to contradict the old ones, but these comments appear aimed to kiss-up to a misogynistic crowd.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  2. #212
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    This was from the previous election, but does anyone remember this?...

    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2007/...ulter-gardner/
    Don't know if she has any new dreams to contradict the old ones, but these comments appear aimed to kiss-up to a misogynistic crowd.
    I am somewhat numb to this because Ann Coulter has always been a completely crazy fuck. At least she's never run for office.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #213
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    These are just numbers I found, where did you see that it was a third of mothers staying home? + a little for them only tracking SAHMs until the kids are 15, but realistically maybe a max of 17% .

    http://www.census.gov/population/www...am/p20-561.pdf

    The relevant information should be on page 11; homemakers are 33% of married mothers and 29% of unmarried mothers.

    My 'more than a third' number is based on my memory of a Pew study referencing this 2007 census study; as it turns out, I made the mistake of remembering only the statistic of married mothers (not that there's a huge difference, which I find kind of surprising). For some strange reason, though, I remembered the number as '34%' rather than the actual 33%, I don't know why.*

    *Edit: It seems that 66% of married couples 'had both parents in the labor force'....presumably, that one-percent difference is explained by stay-at-home dads.

  4. #214
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Republican America.

    Old white men.
    White dentures. Sagging white flesh.
    Exclusive all-white clubs replaced communal parks.
    Recreation is for old white toothless men. Golf and funny caps.

    Frederick II and Bismarck opened private parks for people.
    They were not Republicans.

  5. #215
    Yup
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    Istj
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    noticed how conservatives often use the word, indoctrinate but are`nt they the ones concerned with preserving tradition?

  6. #216
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    http://www.census.gov/population/www...am/p20-561.pdf

    The relevant information should be on page 11; homemakers are 33% of married mothers and 29% of unmarried mothers.

    My 'more than a third' number is based on my memory of a Pew study referencing this 2007 census study; as it turns out, I made the mistake of remembering only the statistic of married mothers (not that there's a huge difference, which I find kind of surprising). For some strange reason, though, I remembered the number as '34%' rather than the actual 33%, I don't know why.*

    *Edit: It seems that 66% of married couples 'had both parents in the labor force'....presumably, that one-percent difference is explained by stay-at-home dads.
    Are you taking this from the employment rates? Because not being employed does not indicate a stay at home mother. It can also indicate unemployment. I would guess that this is the case seeing how in the next paragraph a similar there are 28+% percent of unmarried mothers on food stamps which correlates to the 29% not working.

    That then would result in our numbers matching up more. Which they should from the same source.

  7. #217
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I am somewhat numb to this because Ann Coulter has always been a completely crazy fuck.
    You know, you don't need to be gentle with her. Let's hear how everyone REALLY feels about her.


    At least she's never run for office.
    She has far more capital as a non-politician. She can't win votes, but boy can she be loud and entertaining.... at least, when you don't want to stuff her in a burlap sack with some rocks and toss her in the bay.

    (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    As it is, I haven't been given much reason to believe that Republicans would be less aggressive with their foreign policy. It seems like they'd be more aggressive. So, the statement still stands that the Democratic party comes closer.
    Yeah, I think we'd still be droning... and perhaps even moreso... if the election had gone the other way.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #218
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    When many (most) who receive government benefits, have no substantive stake in paying for those benefits, they (and those they elect) have no incentive to ever worry about how effectively that money is spent, and more to the point, no incentive to ever vote for anything but more benefits.

    I'm of the opinion, that those who receive most of the benefits should have a stake in paying for them. A stake that, while maybe smaller than those in higher tax brackets, is still large enough make them consider their actions before voting for more largesse.

  9. #219
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Are you taking this from the employment rates? Because not being employed does not indicate a stay at home mother. It can also indicate unemployment. I would guess that this is the case seeing how in the next paragraph a similar there are 28+% percent of unmarried mothers on food stamps which correlates to the 29% not working.

    That then would result in our numbers matching up more. Which they should from the same source.
    The numbers seem to be from the Labor Force Participation rate, which takes unemployment into account (but not those who have given up looking for work): http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk1/art04.htm

    Its worth noting that mothers with older children (6-17) are apparently significantly more likely to be in the labor force than are mothers with young children, which makes your experience, though still unusual, less statistically improbable than first glance. Also, mothers are more likely to be in the labor force than other women, though that probably has at least much to do with age brackets and health as with need or desire.

    Edit: this is only tangentially related to our discussion, but I found this study to offer some interesting insights into the circumstances and societal views of working mothers: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2009/...orking-mother/.

  10. #220
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    There are a lot of us out here who would love to see a rational conservative party that would hold to traditional conservative values: fiscal responsibility, limited foreign military involvement, government out of our private lives, reasonably regulated free markets, and conservation of limited resources. The reason so many people voted for Obama and the dems is not because Obama bribed selfish voters, ran a better campaign, or was more effectively negative. The main reason for the repubs' problem is that they are dominated by an incoherent mishmash of religious fundies, science-deniers, self-interested fat cats, and racists. Most republican voters are none of those things, but the radical right wing activists who dominate the party are. If repubs would stop living in denial and making excuses, would marginalize the tea party, and ensure that the religious right can't continue to undermine the First Amendment, they could move back towards the center and become relevant again. But as long as the repubs embrace the crazies and the liars, they'll never get our support. I remember when the dems were too far to the left and they had the good sense to move to the middle (can someone say "Bill Clinton?"). Now the repubs are too far to the right. Will they have the good sense to move to the middle or will they double down on extremism?

    Where is Ike when we need him?
    This was in the comments section of an article about the Republican Governors' gathering. I thought it was well put. Regardless of what you guys think of yourselves and project onto your party (Disco, lowtech, Zara, etc), your party is perceived this way by a large percentage of people, myself included. I see you three as very rational, reasonable people. I see the party you support as a nightmare.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO