Guess liberals need to play "hide the sausage" more often, eh Mark?

With liberals, not everything is a political caluclus, as it seems to be with you.

Aborted babies as potential voters. Sick.

You two can twist this anyway you want, facts is facts, the doinks are aborting themselves to extinction, just like the Europeans.

You two can twist this anyway you want, facts is facts, the doinks are aborting themselves to extinction, just like the Europeans.

Porter-

I didn't twist... I was just making light of the situation... besides... a fact that you righties love to point out, people's political orientations change over time. Who knows what the future political landscape holds?

Umm... okay...

First off the reason why the "Liberal Youth Voter Campaigns" don't work is because most youth don't vote period. Liberal or conservative, programs aimed at the youth just don't work too well because most youths don't seem to care one wit. It's that simple.

As for "breeding themselves away" I can see it, but I have to chuckle at the liberal quoted. Last time I checked the US didn't have 1 Billion people in this country. In fact I do believe the 1st world countries (What the heck makes something a 1st or 3rd world country?) have lower populations and birth ratios then the rest of the globe. So I doubt having two kids by us "wanton breeders" is a bad thing. Then again neither is having only one or none.

Finally, as to aborting their kids I really wish that wouldn't happen. If folks would take more control of their lives they wouldn't need to use abortions as birth control. Especially with plenty of other and more acceptable (in my view) alternatives that don't require a medical procedure. (Condoms, abstinance, birth control, heck even the day after pill.) If you don't want to have kids or you feel you're not ready for kids, cool! Yay for you! Here's a cookie. But please don't create and destroy a life for no good reason when there are ways to make sure no life was created in the first place.

That's a "fertility gap" of 41%.

Wow. The future looks bright for Republicans.

...the doinks are aborting themselves to extinction, just like the Europeans.-Porter Jervis

Yep.

Abort, abort, abort, abort

Besides, have you seen most liberal people? Michael Moore, etc....they are about as ugly as you can get. Who the hell would want to procreate with these toads anyway?

And, last time I checked gay people aren't producing kids either.

I'll take the conservative babes any day of the week. Link below

http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/

a fact that you righties love to point out, people's political orientations change over time. Who knows what the future political landscape holds?

Posted by: Georgia Frawg at August 22, 2006 08:21 PM

I agree. All those baby republicans being produced today will be so repulsed by the outrageous behavior of their right-wing, hypocritical parents and so ashamed of the Republican legacy of destruction, they will turn away from the old 'my father was a republican, so I am a republican' mentality and seek a better, more humane political party.

CO, You mean humane like aborting babies, humane?

Co,
Are you serious? Do you really think the majority of kids raised by conservatives, with morals, ethics, and determination are going to "turn away" so they can become libs? Granted, there will be some, just as there will be children of libs who develope a conscience. You say that they will "seek a better, more humane political party" Which one would that be?Hmmm? The libs "humanity"is exactlty why their numbers are plummeting...

Now now Canadian quit generalizing. You know as well as I do that individual Republicans and Dems aren't nearly as bad as we think of the parties as a whole. Maybe some will look at the party and think that, but I doubt it'll be just because their parents are like that.

Well, C.O., at least with Republicans in charge there is a better chance those children you predict will turn against their parents will, first, be born at all, and second, have a world in which to be born.

I suppose some of them will find it "repulsive" that their parents believe in a higher power and try to follow the discipline of their belief, that they have fought for the freedom and safety of their country, that they have also made sacrifices so that people in other countries will at least have the opportunity to experience those same freedoms and safeties, that they have given generously to charities and good causes, that they have tried with all their might to preserve and follow the Constituion of their great country, and that they have made every effort to overcome the laziness, ineptitude, and general cluelessness of the rabid radical Left which has fought them every step of the way. After all, oppositional personalities are born into every generation.

However, they will have the benefit of hindsight, and will be able to look back on the early years of this century and see the vile attacks on the president of the time, attacks made out of personal pathology and not based on any reality. They will be able to study and evaluate the bizarre hate-motivated bile that passed for political discourse on the Left in the first decade of the century. They will be able to marvel that so many could deny so much, in their blind pursuit of justification for their own need for a dark and hateful perspective.

They will also be able to live with the results of the planning, courage, and sacrifice of so many of their parents' generation, and will be able to see how wholly and grossly wrong the Left was.

And they will have a pretty good idea of what would have happened if the Canadian Observers, the loony (and oh so sanctimonious) larrys, and others of their ilk had prevailed. And if that doesn't scare them into conservatism for the rest of their lives, they will show themselves to lack the connection with reality that marks conservatives, and may very well drift into that strange limbo of negativism that defines the Left as it has become.

And larry----it is "sick" to note that those children killed in the womb will never be able to vote, according to your evidently highly developed sensitivities. They will also not be able to laugh, love, or even take a breath. But it is not sick to kill them in the first place? Twisted....

Almiranta,
Well said as usual!!

ol' larry pontificates: "With liberals, not everything is a political caluclus, as it seems to be with you."

Evidently he did not read the Liberal comment in the post leading off this thread. You know, the quote that says.."Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation."

Guess that's not a "political calculus", eh, lar?

Wow, making the wholesale slaughter of unborn children a real moral triumph----Orwell would be so proud.

So let me see---Liberals screw at least as much as anyone else, but they just scrape out the results, which makes them morally superior because they are not really dodging personal responsibility for their actions, or murdering innocents because they are not convenient, they are really---get ready for this---acting for the good of the ENTIRE PLANET!!!

But the prudish conservatives---you know, those who object to anything sexual----actually take responsibility for their progeny instead of scraping and flushing them, and this is a bad thing, because it is 'environmentally destructive'.

And I'm sure that larry sees nothing at all weird, or distasteful, or even morally bankrupt, in such an analysis---such a "political calculus".

When I see radicals espousing such profoundly disturbing views, I am glad they are not reproducing. As reprehensible as abortion is, it might also be seen as a form, no matter how disgusting, of the Left's beloved Darwinism.

The left divides,
the right mulitplies.
It all adds up.

The author was on Jonathon Batchelor show tonight. Said that 8 in 10 kids of dual parents of one party vote the same way. In other words, if you have two GOP parents, 80% of the time you will be voting GOP as well. Same is true for Donkeys.

Very intersting segment on the show tonight. It should be archived on batchelor's website in a few days for the audio.

The left cares so much about the world that they are essentially commiting suicide?

Well, by all means, if that is what you want...

ummm, didn't a guy named Jesus Christ do that?

"The left cares so much about the world that they are essentially commiting suicide?

Well, by all means, if that is what you want..."

How very christian of you. Yes, I'll say it again, yes, the left DOES care more about the world. And we understand the ramifications of overpopulation and overconsumtion.

I do not find it surprising that the neo thugs believe that their interests come before all. MINE. MINE. MINE. MINE. I got mine, you get yours. Yeah, I need your oil, too bad for you. I'm stronger, I have more weapons, I'll take it. Now it's mine, all mine.

Your Christ would be so proud of you.

"And we understand the ramifications of overpopulation and overconsumtion"

How CRUEL, AND BARBARIC OF YOU!!

Read Exodus 21:21-25

The penalty for harming unborn life

Also read Psalm 139

The importance of unborn life and how important it is to God.

Jeremiah

The liberals are creating another gap. By refusing to serve in the military (especially as officers), they will soon have no idea how the military works. They won't know anything outside what they learn from Hollywoods warped view.

Just because someone is born to conservative parents doesn't mean they will grow up to be conservative. If anything, the trend is moving towards this country becoming more liberal, not less. By today's standards, practically the entire country would have been considered conservative fifty years ago. Today the percentage is probably 30-35 percent. On most social issues, the country has become much more liberal over the past 50 years and I don't see this changing. There is much more tolerance for gays today than there ever was, divorce is considered much more acceptable today than it was 50 years ago, having sex before marriage is much more acceptable today than it ever was, even the way people dress is much more liberal. I doubt very much these trends will be reversed.

Again, can anyone tell me how we're over populating the planet? While America doesn't have a negative growth rate like Europe we're no where near as overpopulated as China, India, or Africa. We've got lots of space here and resources, so again, how does having one or two kids a bad thing?

raker,

And of what worth is the world without people?

Georgia,

Yes, people's political views change over time - almost invariably, however, in a conservative direction. Most people grow up and realise that the world can be a hard place, and that human beings can be perverse.

raker13,

You are messed up, warped, and distorted. The whole concept of making such a statement as "Yes, we understand the ramifications of overpopulation and overconsumption" is mind blowingly sick.

As my brother Jeremiah said, how cruel and barbaric. If you want a communist China, go over and live with them. But as far as I'm concerned, I want those who don't yet have a voice to actually have a VOICE. You know, like the little unborn child who has done no wrong and has yet to come to the age of knowing right and wrong? Lemme tell ya what, if you think that killing is so good and that the US is going to come under a mass starvation, then start right at home.

Go and ex-communicate yourself to an island. Then it'll be one less mouth to feed. You can make the call to do something, the children can't. If someone grows up deciding that we're in a dire shape on the brink of a famine, then by all means let them start curing the problem by taking themselves out. Don't try to put yourself in the place of God, because the shoes are just a touch too big for you.

Lucas

Gozer asks, "Again, can anyone tell me how we're over populating the planet?"

We're not. "Birthrates are declining all over the world-"-Mark Steyn. In fact, our declining birthrates in the West are the real threat to our survival as a Western Civilization.

It's the Demography, Stupid by Mark Steyn
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.

[..] And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%. In America, demographic trends suggest that the blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU: In the 2004 election, John Kerry won the 16 with the lowest birthrates; George W. Bush took 25 of the 26 states with the highest. By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

As fertility shrivels, societies get older--and Japan and much of Europe are set to get older than any functioning societies have ever been. And we know what comes after old age. These countries are going out of business--unless they can find the will to change their ways. Is that likely? I don't think so.[..]

There is no "population bomb." There never was. Birthrates are declining all over the world...." [..]

Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%. Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30% of the world's population to just over 20%, the Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%. [..] And yet the world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.

Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.

Deleted - un-necessarily insulting

Gozer--

Your first post in this thread pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head. As to your final paragraph, it's worth pointing out that Republicans actively fight against things like condoms, birth control, and the morning-after pill--that is, they fight against those things that reduce the number of abortions performed--as a political calculus. It kind of boggles the mind.

Sees,

No, we do it because we love life - actual, individual human life...you on the left are so in love with abstract things such as "humanity" that you forget - and often start to hate - individual humans.

You may have misunderstood my comment. I in no way condone abortion. Period. I believe in using condoms and other forms of birth control. We must control overpopulation, to think otherwise is foolhearty. The days of having 9 or 10 children is over. We do not have farms and ranches requiring family input. I believe common sense should be used when family planning. To me, barbaric as it sounds, common sense family planning is required in TODAYS world. We cannot continue to breed as rats. We consume too much. We must arrest the affect on the globe.

Get real. I am not talking about using abortion as a means of birth control. Please.

My point, stated again is, you neo conservatives think everything, EVERYTHING, is yours to consume and throw away.

Common sense must prevail.

raker13

Well said! I doubt if any of the 'I will have as many babies as God tells me to and will consume as much as I want to' proponents will agree, though.

raker13,

Take some good advice.

"Get real."

Jeremiah

Sounds good to me. So to "get real", I should believe in Adam and Eve and snakes and apples, and an ark with all the animals of the world and sea's parting and all that "real stuff". Ok by me. All those dinosauar bones and evidence of evolution, you know, "science" and all that lame stuff, is bunk. Ok by me.

"lame stuff"

It's only by the grace of God that you are able to walk today!

And you should be exceedingly thankful for that!

You should watch how you talk about God's perfect creation!

Jeremiah

self-extinction of the Western world

"We must control overpopulation, to think otherwise is foolhearty." Posted by: raker13

Raker13, from my post above-

"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation.

[..]Of the increase in global population between 1970 and 2000, the developed world accounted for under 9% of it, while the Muslim world accounted for 26%.

Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.

And by 2020?

So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western."
*****

Raker13, read the whole thing. To do otherwise is foolhearty. What kind of world do you want to live in? a Western world or an Islamic world?

My God, are you people afraid of everything?

Yeesh!

"are you people afraid of everything?"

NO! We just fear God who created EVERYTHING!

And Don't want to mess with His Great plan, that was put in order to work in harmony, by Him and Him alone!!

Jeremiah

Facts are facts, Raker13. Birthrates are birthrates. Western birthrates are plummeting. Islamic birthrates are exploding. Answer my question-what kind of world do you want to live in? a Western world or an Islamic world?

raker almost made sense for a while, till he got to this gem:

"...you neo conservatives think everything, EVERYTHING, is yours to consume and throw away."

This is where he veered off the cliff and into silliness.

Yes, I know how convenient it is for the neorads to pretend that consumption is a conservative value, and that Libs are the pure of heart and mind, the conservators of the world, blah blah blah blah blah.

But your comment is merely emotional venting of a particularly silly and mean-spirited nature. There is no basis for it, no proof for it. It is merely Air America claptrap, the kind of rabble rousing that only works on the rabble.

The saints of Liberalism who lecture us on the need for hybrid cars, on riding bikes, on using clotheslines instead of dryers, etc., also are the ones flying in private jets, driving SUVs, and housing two people (plus staff, of course) in gigantic mansions, adjacent to amenities like swimming pools and 8000 square foot air conditioned barns. The man you would have had as president has several mansions around the world, flies in private jets, has several SUVs at his various residences, and you would elect him in a heartbeat if you had the chance.

Come off it. You start to approach rationality and then you dive headfirst into the death spiral of demagoguery and irrational regurgitation of radical Liberal talking points.

But you are the first to line up to whine about any perceived "generalizations" of the radical Left, by golly.

You keep harping on the need to cut back on the birth rate. Handy, for those who chose not to be parents, to present this choice as one indicating moral superiority and responsibility. That is much easier to live with than being labeled selfish and immature and unwilling to assume responsibility for anything but your own pleasure, as some might characterize it.

But beyond the assumed cloak of sanctity you associate with a negative birth rate, have you thought about who is supposed to support your lefty pyramid scheme of ever-increasing entitlements if no one is there to do the work? Have you looked at how many people it will take putting money into the social security system just so you can get yours when the time comes? If you don't produce income-generating offspring to keep funding your entitlements, then at least have the grace to be thankful to those who do.

You are in a bind, raker. On one hand you sneer at the productive and independent who make good money, invest it, build financial security for themselves instead of just sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of them, and contribute in their turn to the overall economy through their investments, savings, and purchases. But you ignore the fact that the futures of many, who do count on the government to take care of them, via various entitlement schemes such as social security, depend on those very people. And on their progeny, who hopefully will be brought up to be productive, and independent, and contributors as well.

Because the simple fact is, if the entire economy now and in the future rested on the radical Left's scrawny shoulders, we would all be in a world of hurt. Between the gross ignorance of basic economics and the lower productivity of those who are more interested in in feeding at the public trough, the Left is not exactly a dynamo of economic energy.

Your hatred of those who simply are better at what they do than you are is not very flattering. And your mouthing of old-hat class-warfare slogans is not, either.

Posted by: Almiranta at August 23, 2006 11:40 PM

Devastating post, Almiranta. I think we'll see the deterioration and collapse of the European socialist system in the next 20 years or so just based on their plummeting population numbers. France of all countries has (sort of) recognized this crisis. France is paying women of high education and high paying jobs a significant amount of money to have more children. Europe is in deep trouble.

Almiranta: Because the simple fact is, if the entire economy now and in the future rested on the radical Left's scrawny shoulders, we would all be in a world of hurt. Between the gross ignorance of basic economics and the lower productivity of those who are more interested in in feeding at the public trough, the Left is not exactly a dynamo of economic energy.

Roderick: LOL. maybe you need to do some research on that Almiranta before you shoot off your mouth.

If we broke things down into blue states vs. red states it would show you that the blue states contribute more to the federal government than they receive from the federal government while the red states could be considered welfare states.

It would truely be interesting to see what would happen if the federal government were dissolved.

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Get off your elitist high horse, Roddy. For one thing, we are talking demographics here. We are talking about birthrates and the effect of declining birthrates on different demographic groups. It's NUMBERS, Roddy-lad---numbers related to BIRTH RATES.

The first point was that the numbers favor conservatives, as Liberals aren't reproducing very well. Argue that point if you will.

The neorad approach was to try to deflect the discussion into neorad talking point attack territory. Therefore, repopulation became a crime or a sin or whatever word you all use these days. In any case, the Left side was presented as a moral high ground, and the reproductive side as evil and abusive of the earth, or some such claptrap.

So I addressed the claim of overpopulation (debunked!) and the potential problems of a declining birthrate, as applied to the entitlement programs so beloved of the Left which depend on enough working bodies, in the future, to keep them afloat.

I described these entitlement programs, accurately, as pyramid schemes, and pointed out that with a declining birth rate these schemes will fall in on themselves. And in doing so pointed out the fallacy in simultaneously demanding more future entitlements and damning those who are providing the base for funding those entitlements.

And YOU, Rod, came blasting in like a typical neorad with a bunch of cut-and-paste numbers which are totally irrelevant to the points I made.

I could waste some time digging up talking points on how much is spent on D.C. students, who rank at the bottom nationally in academic achievement, compared to Utah, with the lowest expenditures and the highest rating. But you know what? It wouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

So try to keep up, Rod. Go back, read the thread lead-in, see if you can see the links among the posts, and see if you can come up with an argument that addresses the points I made.

You might start with an analysis of how your entitlement programs will be supported with a dramatically lower population paying into them. (This is what I meant by "..gross ignorance of basic economics..."

Roderick,

It's safe at this point to exclude Almiranta from any specific discussions on a particular topic, as he or she is simply unable to stay on topic, going to absurd attempts to link any fact or theory to his or her own personal ideology. Such people are immune from relavent discussion and are best left alone to linger in their own self-imposed cocoon.

Rod,

Now try breaking it down by county - New Jersey is a net loser...but I'll bet that the heaviest Democrat areas of New Jersey are net gainers. Same thing with New York, Massachusetts, etc...

Additionally, a lot of the federal dollars spent in red States is via military spending...and this really is due to blue States NIMBYing the military in to the red States.

After all, Rod, who has more welfare recipients per 100,000 of population: Los Angeles or Salt Lake City?