|
|
#51
10-02-2007, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural, and at the root of many of our current sociological problems ranging from education to crime. [/ QUOTE ] This is not decidedly clear, economic conditions have the highest predictive value, once economic conditions are adjusted for male presence (or single parent) becomes far less significant a factor in predicting future issues. All that has been shown is that there is a correlation between poverty and single parent households under our current system of incentives. 
|
|
#53
10-02-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
Well it's not my argument or stance but I don't have a big problem with it either. I also don't think it would be a pivotal issue for most voters [/ QUOTE ] Its not a pivotal issue for MOST voters. But the people to whom it IS a key issue are courted vigorously by the GOP. And, I believe they tend to be the kind of people who are highly motivated to vote.
|
|
#54
10-02-2007, 04:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
So I wouldn't rule out any party because of their stance (regardless of which) on that one narrow issue. [/ QUOTE ] Narrow issue? Care to explain why it's a narrow issue? Would you rule out a party if they targeted a certain race and denied them rights? I find it sad that everyone discounts the issue like it's not important. They act like the gay population is < 1,000 and that it's OK if they can be discriminated against, since there are more important issues. Wake the [censored] up, you can deal with more than one issue at a time. Do you honestly believe granting the same rights to everyone is going to cause the Iraq war to explode? Do you think it's going to cost $100 billion and [censored] up the environment?
|
|
#55
10-02-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
Stock market record highs Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month 100,000 jobs created last month Core inflation stable Consumer spending up Construction and housing starts up The only negative I was oil at $80 a barrel, but then even with gas prices reflecting that, a lower percentage of income will be spent on gas than in 1980. [/ QUOTE ] I admit I only skimmed through this thread, but did you ever bother to make a point about this list of anecdotal observations? What is their overall significance?
|
|
#56
10-02-2007, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural, and at the root of many of our current sociological problems ranging from education to crime. [/ QUOTE ] In many cultures children were raised by the women until puberty, and subsequently raised by the men. If you want to talk about human history, it takes a village. But there's no such thing as "natural," period. If you want to use a term like "morally stable" or some other [censored] subjective euphemism, that's fine. But don't try to use scientific-sounding words when science rejects everything you say. Not only is the nuclear family a relatively new invention, but the evidence suggests that even monogamy is something of an aberration. You're talking about your religion and how it's practiced in the modern day, nothing more. [/ QUOTE ] Im not talking about any religion, particularly since Im an atheist. And Ive already discussed why the nuclear family is a relatively new phenomenon. However, to say that there is no such thing as "natural", in the sense that we are using the word, is preposterous.
|
|
#57
10-02-2007, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Stock market record highs Military and civilian casualties in Iraq lowest in 12 months last month 100,000 jobs created last month Core inflation stable Consumer spending up Construction and housing starts up The only negative I was oil at $80 a barrel, but then even with gas prices reflecting that, a lower percentage of income will be spent on gas than in 1980. [/ QUOTE ] I admit I only skimmed through this thread, but did you ever bother to make a point about this list of anecdotal observations? What is their overall significance? [/ QUOTE ] The point is in the Subject, obviously. Not sure why you are the only one to not pick up on that.
|
|
#58
10-02-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What is absolutely clear is that raising children without ANY male presence is decidedly unnatural, and at the root of many of our current sociological problems ranging from education to crime. [/ QUOTE ] This is not decidedly clear, economic conditions have the highest predictive value, once economic conditions are adjusted for male presence (or single parent) becomes far less significant a factor in predicting future issues. All that has been shown is that there is a correlation between poverty and single parent households under our current system of incentives. [/ QUOTE ] Uhhhh...economic status and single parenthood/male in the household are highly correlated to start with. "Adjusting for economic conditions" is bound to suppress the significance of family composition, and, as you pointed out it is a less signficant factor...but it is still significant.
|
|
#59
10-02-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So I wouldn't rule out any party because of their stance (regardless of which) on that one narrow issue. [/ QUOTE ] Narrow issue? Care to explain why it's a narrow issue? Would you rule out a party if they targeted a certain race and denied them rights? I find it sad that everyone discounts the issue like it's not important. They act like the gay population is < 1,000 and that it's OK if they can be discriminated against, since there are more important issues. Wake the [censored] up, you can deal with more than one issue at a time. Do you honestly believe granting the same rights to everyone is going to cause the Iraq war to explode? Do you think it's going to cost $100 billion and [censored] up the environment? [/ QUOTE ] Its a narrow issue because most people dont give a crap either way, and if thats the one that tips the balance then your priorities are askew, imo. I also dont agree that civil unions vs marriage are "discriminatory" per se.
|
|
#60
10-02-2007, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems
I'm sure a large majority of republicans will be super excited to have a pro gun control, pro abortion, pro gays, pro stem cells presidential nominee ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET.
I'm sure Hillary will offset that though LOL
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
