Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Breeding new Conservatives

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Breeding new Conservatives
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted December 10, 2004 12:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Leftists, turn out the lights, the party's over

Friday, Dec. 10, 2004 11:43 a.m. EST
Republicans Outbreed Us, Democrats Fret

Democrats' endless and often clueless stewing over the GOP's latest election triumphs just keeps getting funnier. Now they’re worried, with some justification, that fertile young conservatives are replacing dried-up old liberals.


Have you heard of "natalists"? They’re the left's new boogeyman. These curious Middle American creatures, it seems, care more about having a family than a summer home in the Hamptons. They tend to have conservative moral values. And ... they're reproducing!

Now the media elitists are examining this phenomenon of flyover country as if it's some sort of exotic species that must be dissected, though perhaps not exterminated.

The New York Times' David Brooks frets: "They are having three, four or more kids. Their personal identity is defined by parenthood. They are more spiritually, emotionally and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do. Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling."


Oh, the agony of missing Hollywood's "sophisticated movies." Heavens, could there be people who'd rather raise their children than catch a double bill of "Kinsey" and "Saw"?

"People on the Great Plains and in the Southwest are much more fertile than people in New England or on the Pacific coast," Brooks worries.

"You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."


New Republic frets: "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales [such as] San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."

USA Today notes that President Bush won 474 of the nation's 573 fast-growing micropolitan areas (places too urban to be rural but too small to be metropolitan).

Brooks offers his latte-sipping readers a bit of reassurance: "Natalists are associated with red America, but they're not launching a jihad."

Wow. Someone at the New York Times admits that heartland America is not identical with Islamic terrorists. How progressive.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/12/10/114946.shtml

IP: Logged

quiksilver
unregistered
posted December 12, 2004 12:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
QUOTE:

"You can see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."


New Republic frets: "Democrats swept the largely childless cities - true blue locales [such as] San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Boston and Manhattan have the lowest percentages of children in the nation - but generally had poor showings in those places where families are settling down, notably the Sun Belt cities, exurbs and outer suburbs of older metropolitan areas."

USA Today notes that President Bush won 474 of the nation's 573 fast-growing micropolitan areas (places too urban to be rural but too small to be metropolitan)."

******************************************

Strange that no one talks about this. I have noticed the same trend as well. Given the rate of population growth as it is associated with the Conservative community, sheer numbers alone will likely indicate the this country as a whole will be governed by more Conservative values in the years to come. So it seems, that barring some large scale destruction, Liberals need to start popping some Viagra pills if they want to compete! It's really all about the numbers. And at this rate, Liberals may be all but extinct within the next few generations!!!

(Jwhop - perhaps you are regreting the post of this article! After all, you wouldn't want to give the Liberals any kind of "heads up" as to what is going on and how they might effetively counteract!!!)

IP: Logged

Atlantic Myst
unregistered
posted January 20, 2005 03:34 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some people could be so gullible

------------------
~*~ Cusp: Gemini/Cancer, Cancer rising, Taurus moon ~*~


Let's go...


"I loved all who were positive in the event of my demise".

IP: Logged

LibraSparkle
unregistered
posted January 20, 2005 03:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah they can. Funny you should bring that up

IP: Logged

Atlantic Myst
unregistered
posted January 21, 2005 06:24 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're a perfect example huh?

------------------
~*~ Cusp: Gemini/Cancer, Cancer rising, Taurus moon ~*~


Let's go...

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted January 21, 2005 11:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not worried. It just means there will be more rebel black sheep types in the families.. Like me! I'm born and bred in red red red Alaska with nothing but Republican relatives.

IP: Logged

Saffron
unregistered
posted January 22, 2005 12:40 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
attempting to classify everything so neatly as right and left, conservative and liberal has my head spinning!

one group would villify me for some of my ideals, the other for some other ideals i have -- none of them closely related.

would i then be abandoned in the wasteland of non-conformity? gasp!!! how will i ever define myself?

natalists? that's the funniest thing i've heard in so long...and saddest too.

can that person be serious? that giving up movies and new cars and expensive restaurants for a larger family is regrettable? how can you even them out as trade-offs? i really find this shocking...and so weird that one behavior is 'conservative' and the other 'liberal.'

does anyone see this as an utter fabrication of this issue?

owwww...intellectual brain freeze...

i'll have a supersized family with those fries, thank you, i'm eating dinner at the fast-food-o-rama because my ever-growing, self-inflicted, sacrificial offspring choice has rendered me newly-conservative, anti-intellectual and culture-free.

amen.

(i still dream of adding a number of asset-draining entities to my wee collection of little humans (1), my non-partisan version of a love-filled life -- if that isn't already restricted by a political camp to which i am compelled to belong.)

IP: Logged

Saffron
unregistered
posted January 22, 2005 12:47 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
what about the non-white, non-suburban and lower income bracket citizens who flout all the birth-control propaganda saturation?

do they fit the 'desirable' profile of 'morally conservative' staunch citizenry, or is this category strictly reserved for the income, class and geography approved?

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a