Social Issues on the Horizon

[danefan]

I for one will vote for any candidate who takes on the personal responsibility to outlaw the use of the non-word "irregardless".

That is a social issue that we need to correct in this country and fast.

I barked at a co-worker once because he used that "word". He reached up to his bookshelf and pulled out a dictionary and BANG, the word was in there. I walked out with tail between legs.

Its the non-literate agenda becoming mainstream. I refuse to accept this "lifestyle" as part of the fabric of America. There is no way our Founding Fathers would have ever allowed the use of such a non-word in our society.

[ASUMountaineer]

I barked at a co-worker once because he used that "word". He reached up to his bookshelf and pulled out a dictionary and BANG, the word was in there. I walked out with tail between legs.

Its the non-literate agenda becoming mainstream. I refuse to accept this "lifestyle" as part of the fabric of America. There is no way our Founding Fathers would have ever allowed the use of such a non-word in our society.

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

[CAA Flagship]

Clearly, they are idiots.
But this is where campaigns win or lose elections. Dems have these "direct-affect" social issues that have to be discussed because the questions gets asked. Clearly, they are not at the top of the Reps list of important issues. The difference being that Dems are looking for social "rights" they don't currently have. The Reps have all the social rights they desire at the moment. Take away money from Reps to fund expensive and poorly executed programs, and you will have a party that gets somewhat charged up. But never to the extent of the Dems and the social issues (not saying there is anything wrong with that, just saying that taking a little more money from someone far less impactful as immigration, abortion, marriage, etc.).
It comes down to the level of motivation regarding certain issues that determine the direction of votes. The reason I started this thread is to see what might be on the horizon and what level of importance it may have on the voters, versus fiscal issues.

Clearly? Don't think so. Read the GOP platform sometime, there are plenty of social agenda issues on it.

It takes two to fight. If the left and right are fighting about a social issue it's because they BOTH feel strongly about it.

Almost all of the GOP social agenda issues are in defense of a change to something that exists and they like. It would not be on the GOP agenda if the Dems didn't want something changed. Defending something is different than pushing for change. One does not happen unless something is initiated by someone else.
(and don't take this debate as me not agreeing with some of the social issue stances of the left)

[89Hen]

Its the non-literate agenda becoming mainstream. I refuse to accept this "lifestyle" as part of the fabric of America. There is no way our Founding Fathers would have ever allowed the use of such a non-word in our society.

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

I could care less.

Yes, that's a joke.

[BlueHen86]

Clearly? Don't think so. Read the GOP platform sometime, there are plenty of social agenda issues on it.

It takes two to fight. If the left and right are fighting about a social issue it's because they BOTH feel strongly about it.

Almost all of the GOP social agenda issues are in defense of a change to something that exists and they like. It would not be on the GOP agenda if the Dems didn't want something changed. Defending something is different than pushing for change. One does not happen unless something is initiated by someone else.
(and don't take this debate as me not agreeing with some of the social issue stances of the left)

What difference does any of that make? The fact is, it's being argued about, it's obviously important to both sides.

[ASUMountaineer]

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

I could care less.

Yes, that's a joke.

I see what you did there.

[danefan]

Its the non-literate agenda becoming mainstream. I refuse to accept this "lifestyle" as part of the fabric of America. There is no way our Founding Fathers would have ever allowed the use of such a non-word in our society.

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

Seems to me like it should act as a double negative resulting in the meaning of "full of regard."

Argh. Even debating the meaning is a waste of valuable intellectual resources in this country which we should be using to come up with an even smaller (but not too small) Ipad. We need everyone on board and focused on developing the appropriate Ipad size.

[ASUMountaineer]

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

Seems to me like it should act as a double negative resulting in the meaning of "full of regard."

Argh. Even debating the meaning is a waste of valuable intellectual resources in this country which we should be using to come up with an even smaller (but not too small) Ipad. We need everyone on board and focused on developing the appropriate Ipad size.

[Ibanez]

Maybe if the Republicans were less hostile to anyone that isn't a heterosexual, white guy, they'd perform better.

Irregardless.

[AZGrizFan]

Yes, both parties have single issue voters. But it is the Republicans that "business" believes is better for the economy. Like it or not, if you are a dem, you are fooling yourself to think that your vote is going towards a better economy. Better socially, sure. Better economy, not really, because if "business" is nervous, they play things very conservatively (= less jobs). The economy does not excel in this situation.

Funny you should say that. 8 years under a Dem in the 90s and business was booming. 8 years under a conk in the 2000s and the economy nearly collapsed. You got some 'slpaining to do.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, convince me that you don't view the world in that simplistic of a fashion...

[Grizalltheway]

Funny you should say that. 8 years under a Dem in the 90s and business was booming. 8 years under a conk in the 2000s and the economy nearly collapsed. You got some 'slpaining to do.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, convince me that you don't view the world in that simplistic of a fashion...

Of course not, but conks certainly seem to. See Flaggy's last 40 or so posts for evidence.

[AZGrizFan]

PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, convince me that you don't view the world in that simplistic of a fashion...

Of course not, but conks certainly seem to. See Flaggy's last 40 or so posts for evidence.

I see. So everyone ELSE is serious, yours is tongue-in-cheek. Gotcha.

[CAA Flagship]

Almost all of the GOP social agenda issues are in defense of a change to something that exists and they like. It would not be on the GOP agenda if the Dems didn't want something changed. Defending something is different than pushing for change. One does not happen unless something is initiated by someone else.
(and don't take this debate as me not agreeing with some of the social issue stances of the left)

What difference does any of that make? The fact is, it's being argued about, it's obviously important to both sides.

Groups looking for change are more motivated than those content with the status quo. When defending, you are responding to a challenge. If the challenge does not exist, it isn't an issue, and therefore not on the agenda. I'm just saying that challengers are generally more motivated than defenders regarding how they vote.

[CAA Flagship]

PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy, convince me that you don't view the world in that simplistic of a fashion...

Of course not, but conks certainly seem to. See Flaggy's last 40 or so posts for evidence.

I see that.

[Grizalltheway]

Of course not, but conks certainly seem to. See Flaggy's last 40 or so posts for evidence.

I see that.

Go Ducks!

[CAA Flagship]

I see that.

Go Ducks!

Dammit GATW. You got me with my mouth open.

[BlueHen86]

What difference does any of that make? The fact is, it's being argued about, it's obviously important to both sides.

Groups looking for change are more motivated than those content with the status quo. When defending, you are responding to a challenge. If the challenge does not exist, it isn't an issue, and therefore not on the agenda. I'm just saying that challengers are generally more motivated than defenders regarding how they vote.

I still don't see how that is relevant. In your first post you painted this as if it's the democrats that are bringing up minor social issues, while it's the republicans that are trying to be serious about fiscal issues.

It takes two to argue, the republicans don't get the "serious" high ground because they are arguing to keep the social issue status quo.

Even if you were correct, abortion is legal right now, by your logic it's the GOP that must be making an issue out of it.

[death dealer]

We need God in our schools.

He'd probably be one helluva teacher!

[BlueHen86]

We need God in our schools.

He'd probably be one helluva teacher!

Creationists probably wouldn't let Him teach science.

[CAA Flagship]

Groups looking for change are more motivated than those content with the status quo. When defending, you are responding to a challenge. If the challenge does not exist, it isn't an issue, and therefore not on the agenda. I'm just saying that challengers are generally more motivated than defenders regarding how they vote.

I still don't see how that is relevant. In your first post you painted this as if it's the democrats that are bringing up minor social issues, while it's the republicans that are trying to be serious about fiscal issues.

It takes two to argue, the republicans don't get the "serious" high ground because they are arguing to keep the social issue status quo.

Even if you were correct, abortion is legal right now, by your logic it's the GOP that must be making an issue out of it.

You are right, the abortion issue is where the GOP is technically the challenger. Fortunately, this is not an issue that is high on my list as it has not affected me personally. I lean more to pro-choice especially under certain conditions. I have concerns on the government funding of abortions however. But this carries only a little weight by itself when it comes time to vote.

It would be interesting to see how people decide to vote. There are definitely those who use one social issue to make their decision. Others maybe two or three. Some (me) make their decisions based on the impact on the economy. Others on their stance on the military. And on and on.
I think the economy positively or negatively affects more people than any one social issue (which is easy for me to say since there are no social issues that fire me up).

[mainejeff]

1. Religion (bad mix with politics/to tax or not to tax)
2. Environment (how much do we destroy and where?)
3. Porn (you might be surprised to see which side pushes for limitations on this one)

[CAA Flagship]

1. Religion (bad mix with politics/to tax or not to tax)
2. Environment (how much do we destroy and where?)
3. Porn (you might be surprised to see which side pushes for limitations on this one)

Jeff,
Do you think these issues will outweigh the economy regarding how people vote in the future? I just don't think these issues are as motivational. Well, certainly religion is, but I don't see people crossing over the party line as they would with abortion, immigration, marriage, etc.

[AZGrizFan]

Amen. The "word" doesn't even make sense. I suppose it's used interchangeably with the correct word "regardless." However, adding "ir" in front of "regardless" should make the non-word "irregardless" mean something different. This makes the use of the "word" even more ridiculous.

I could care less.

Yes, that's a joke.

Irregardless, can we get this thread back on track?