What does "Democrat"/"Republican" mean to you?- Page 2

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:12pm

in 2030 when the baby boomers retire

This doesn't make sense. Can you explain?

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:19pm

Sure.

The United States experienced an "explosion" of births after American soldiers returned home from World War II. The sociologists define those born between (and including) 1946 and 1964 as "baby boomers." To be fair, some people born on the fringes of this time period do not think of themselves as boomers. When we think of the baby boomer generation, we often think of those born in the 1960s. That is the decade that seems to have defined the boomers.

There are 76.1 million Americans between the ages of 40 and 58 in 2004. That represents about 28 percent of the U.S population.
In 26 years -- 2030 -- this group will all be older than 65. Who knows what will happen with the social security age limits, but I'm using 65 and above as the definition of "retired."

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:23pm

Ok. It's a confusing statistic because baby boomers have already started retiring. I am one of those that is born on the fringes and do not consider myself a baby boomer. (I personally don't believe the world will exist as it is in 2030, but if I did, I wouldn't put any faith in Social Security).

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:25pm

Why is nobody answering my question?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:26pm

"While I would want to help others if I was rich, upper class people do not have an OBLIGATION to give money to the lower class. It's their money, the government shouldn't force them to fork it over to people dependent on government money."

I can only hope that you are either very young, or very sheltered...that being the reason why you seem to have no concept that "there but for the grace of God go I..." means. This is one of the most frightening sentiments I have read on this board in a very long time.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:28pm

Mattio, I do not believe in abortion as a birth control method, only in cases where it would end the mother's life or in the case of rape/incest.

I do not believe in gay marriage.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:30pm

Gothampc, I agree with you regarding abortion, however I think this should be a moral issue and not a legal one, therefore I'm pro-choice.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:33pm

Type, if we could trust people to be moral, it wouldn't be an issue. We have to protect the life of unborn children when their parents act stupidly.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:34pm

"I do not believe in gay marriage."

And now the question is: Do you believe in banning it? And if so, why?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:39pm

Mattio, Rob is going to be mad at me for wasting bandwidth. What do you think?

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:43pm

I have never been so frightened in my life. I'm with flit. Damn, I wish I had never peeled back even the first layer of the onion on these Republicans.

This political philosophy is terrifying.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:49pm

My thoughts on gay marriage? To each his or her own. It's the concept that this great nation is based on. And please don't run away from answering this.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:49pm

Type, if we could trust people to be moral, it wouldn't be an issue. We have to protect the life of unborn children when their parents act stupidly.

Fair enough. But on the other hand, it could be (and is) argued that the right for a woman to have control over her body is considered a greater priority than the control over the life of an unborn fetus.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:56pm

Type, a woman didn't put the baby inside herself, how can she claim rights to what should be done with it?

Mattio, I'm not running away from answering anything. I think you can read my previous posts and form a conclusion on my values. Bible/Christian/against gay marriage. What conclusion does that lead you to?

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 10:59pm

Ummmm.....it leads me to the point that you, like so many conservatives, missed out on that "separation of church and state" thing. That's just a tad scary. Did you approve of the prayer sessions ending every portion of the RNC? In fact, did you conduct them?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:04pm

missed out on that "separation of church and state" thing

It is a fact that politicians had church services in the rotunda of the Capitol on a regular basis. Does that sound like they were pushing for a separation of church and state? There were no other buildings available in Washington DC? They specifically chose the Capitol for their religious worship.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:10pm

And they were wrong too.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:14pm

Check out the second paragraph and explain that to me.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc5.htm

[BT]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:19pm

It means that the nondenominational Christian cathedral was built in Washington DC. Religious people go there to do religious things. The capitol is the place where they go to make the laws of the land. They are separated by several miles. I live on Capitol Hill and can verify this fact. See, separation of CHURCH and STATE.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:20pm

Often in our history, our government has not abided by their own laws. For example: All men are created equal. For a little while there, discrimination against minorities was ok. But don't we need to improve on that now? What ever happened to trying to make America constantly better than it was yesterday?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:22pm

BT, the cathedral reference was a second reference that the framers of the Constitution held reverence for religion.

The Capitol reference is still valid. Since you can verify facts on Capitol Hill, why don't you walk over to the Capitol and ask them about their history.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:33pm

So you think that religion should be allowed in government?

[BT]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:33pm

Indeed the framers did make clear in the constitution that the government would neither dictate a religion or make laws against a religion. I don't think you can possibly read the document to say that the religious beliefs of a group of people can or should be pushed on to the people of America.

Is the rotunda at the Capitol an appropriate place for a prayer ceremony? No. Is the office of the Attorney General an appropriate place for a prayer ceremony? No. Is the national cathedral an appropriate place for elected leaders to have a prayer ceremony? Sure, if they want to. I think I get it.

I'm happy to stop my morning jog tomorrow to discuss matters of history with any politician who happens to be on the grounds of the Capitol. Just give me a topic and I'll see what I can dig up for you.

And by the way, your comment about trusting people to be moral was patently offensive. I am constantly amazed at Republican whining about big government and oppressive regulation when it comes to corporate welfare or the death tax or anything else that equates to dollars in your pockets, but when it comes to matters of your morality you are happy to step in and regulate abortion and gay rights. You can't have it both ways.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:45pm

" We have to protect the life of unborn children when their parents act stupidly. "

Were that the right-to-lifers so passionate about insuring that said child would be guaranteed health care and a decent education.... Oh, but wait...that would be the tax and spend Democrats...

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/25/04 at 11:52pm

"Mattio, I'm not running away from answering anything. I think you can read my previous posts and form a conclusion on my values. Bible/Christian/against gay marriage. What conclusion does that lead you to? "

It leads me to ask you many questions, my friend. Firstly, eat any shellfish recently? Any meat from animals with cloven hooves? How about suffering witches to live?

Better yet, try this one on for size. Remember when Jesus asked the rich man to sell his possessions, give it all to the poor and follow him? Hmm, thought not. Once again, we find someone who can sit atop his ivory tower, smug in his interpretation of the Bible as the moral argument to **** over his fellow man.

Updated On: 9/25/04 at 11:52 PM