I really don't understand the whole Reagan legacy thing. His tenancy in office corresponded with shear misery here in Oregon; out of control unemployment, spending cuts and tax increases to cover the gap. All I remember about him was his predilection for running up the deficit, breaking federal laws (bolan amendment) and scapegoating the poor. Does anyone remember the homelessness issues of the 80s? Was I watching a different TV than everyone else?
FUCK REAGAN
It is no surprise that that you don't understand the reagan legacy when you are so miserably misinformed.
- The deficit and unemployment were both the result of the reagan administration having to confront the stagflation and destruction of the military that had occured under the anti-semite jimmy carter. The true legacy of reagan's economic record is this: the united states was twice as wealthy when reagan left office as it had been when he entered. There is a reason that clinton adopted the economic outlook of the previous republican adminstrations rather than return to the madness of the carter government.
- Homelessness under reagan was in the main the combined legacy of the government home building program(which with typical democratic competency actually destroyed more homes than it created) and rent control(this greatly depressed the supply of rentable properties in urban areas because it made it virtually impossible for landlords to break even let alone make a profit on such properties). The most popular 'liberal' argument, that the rise in homelessness was the result of the number of public housing units authorized by congress falling under reagan, is typical leftist sophistry. It overlooks the fact that such units can take as much as ten years to be built after they have been authorized. If you look at the number of public housing units actually built under reagan they excedde the number built in the 70's by a clear margin.
- Poverty fell under reagan so again your talk of 'scapegoating the poor' is more bullshit.
- Reagan didnt break any federal law
yes. being a liberal, he was the most appealing to me (on certain issues). i said romney looked the most "presidential", but even among republicans, i think Paul was the clear winner...and not because he was so good, but merely because everyone else was so poor.
don't be fooled by his seemingly liberal positions on habeus corpus, the fourth amendment and iraq. he just believes federal government should be completely hands off. accordingly, i doubt he would favor any programs for the poor and certainly not welfare. he's a survival of the fittest type guy.
You are not a liberal in any real sense of the word. Youre a 'progressive' aka socialist and accordingly you smear anyone who believes government should fulfill the role the founders originally envisioned.
Nobody on here liked Ron Paul?
he's a survival of the
fittestrichest[/b] type guy.
Nobody likes laissez-faire government better than the wealthy.
You are a thunderous idiot. The 'wealthy' are forever urging for subsidies, tariffs on foreign imports and so on. They hate laissez-faire almost as much as you statist control freaks do. Let me remind you that the literal translation of laissez-faire is 'Let do' ie freedom. When you people attack it all you do is belie your stated belief in liberty and reveal a black heart that yearns only for dominion.
one of the candidates was asked, (i'm paraphrasing both the question and answer) "if a business owner thinks homosexuality is immoral and finds out one of his employees is gay should they be able to fire the employee?"
he stared off blankly for a minute while the gears whirred away. then turned and answered ,"yes a business should be able to do as it pleases."
i'm not trying to make a partisan statement when i say i really thought we had advanced past this already.
Hey bastard, the government doesnt exist to force people to do what you want them to do. To support someones right to make such a decision doesnt mean you support the decision itself, just that you have a sincere belief in liberty. Something that no lefty has. Youre hopelessly naive if you think that making it illegal to fire people because theyre gay is going to stop someone so inclined anyway. They will find some pretext to do it. All such laws succede in doing obscuring what it is they are ostensibly installed to wipe out. Still, superficial results are more than good enough for you dispicable vermin.
one of the candidates was asked, (i'm paraphrasing both the question and answer) "if a business owner thinks homosexuality is immoral and finds out one of his employees is gay should they be able to fire the employee?"
he stared off blankly for a minute while the gears whirred away. then turned and answered ,"yes a business should be able to do as it pleases."
i'm not trying to make a partisan statement when i say i really thought we had advanced past this already.
Hey bastard, the government doesnt exist to force people to do what you want them to do. To support someones right to make such a decision doesnt mean you support the decision itself, just that you have a sincere belief in liberty. Something that no lefty has. Youre hopelessly naive if you think that making it illegal to fire people because theyre gay is going to stop someone so inclined anyway. They will find some pretext to do it. All such laws succede in doing obscuring what it is they are ostensibly installed to wipe out. Still, superficial results are more than good enough for you dispicable vermin.
1) tommy thompson was on bill maher this weekend and he said that he misheard the question (because his hearing aid was malfunctioning) and that he would have answered the opposite way (employers should NOT be able to discriminate due to sexual orientation).
2) hey bastard???
3) it is inexplicable that title vii provides a remedy for people who are sexually harassed due to sexual orientation, but (so far) does not give them a cause of action if they are fired due to sexual orientation.
4) there are several states (and cities...including philadelphia) where there are laws preventing employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
5) every successful discrimination case has to deal with some bullshit pretextual reason for firing. you think employers just admit that they canned someone cause of race/sex/age??? the fact that employers try (and are sometime succesful) at covering up their discrimination is an assinine reason for not having an anti-sexual orientation discrimination law.
Youre hopelessly naive if you think that making it illegal to fire people because theyre gay is going to stop someone so inclined anyway. They will find some pretext to do it.
So just because people will try and get around the laws we should just abolish those laws entirely?
Yep.....ignore all that other stuff and just focus on Iraq.....sounds like a plan for victory.
Rich - I respect your post as based on your own experience, but every poll in the country has the Republican party 10 points down from Democrats not even including independents and "swing" voters. How do you explain this monumental shift in tides since the 2000 elections?
Yep.....ignore all that other stuff and just focus on Iraq.....sounds like a plan for victory.
Rich - I respect your post as based on your own experience, but every poll in the country has the Republican party 10 points down from Democrats not even including independents and "swing" voters. How do you explain this monumental shift in tides since the 2000 elections?
First off....any poll that shows a "swing" obviously includes swing votes.
And seeing that the Election is way down the road I assume you realize that today's polls don't mean squat.....just ask the French Socialists.
Let me ask you, or anyone else who cares to answer....
Of the 5 points I made about areas where the Dems have to improve, which do you think are incorrect and/or innaccurate and why??
Youre hopelessly naive if you think that making it illegal to fire people because theyre gay is going to stop someone so inclined anyway. They will find some pretext to do it.
So just because people will try and get around the laws we should just abolish those laws entirely?
No, this law should be abolished because it's illiberal. That it is also completely ineffective in furthering its intended goal is a subsidary observation.
The Republicans have almost no chance of winning in 2008 for three very important reasons.
1) Bush (and his terrible record) has crushed the spirit of the far right wing of the party. They are totally in a daze and are planning to sit this one out just like 1996.
2) Republicans have nothing to run on right now. Most wedge issues are favoring Dems by a very large majority right now. This is the most important change in the electorate since 2000. The great equalizers for Republicans, national security and limited gov't, are now owned by Dems.
3) No good candidates. As you could see, the Republicans made the Dem debate look like a Springsteen concert by comparison. Rich is totally correct when he says that many people will vote strictly on visual appeal, which the GOP is seriously lacking.
Yep.....ignore all that other stuff and just focus on Iraq.....sounds like a plan for victory.
Rich - I respect your post as based on your own experience, but every poll in the country has the Republican party 10 points down from Democrats not even including independents and "swing" voters. How do you explain this monumental shift in tides since the 2000 elections?
First off....any poll that shows a "swing" obviously includes swing votes.
And seeing that the Election is way down the road I assume you realize that today's polls don't mean squat.....just ask the French Socialists.
Let me ask you, or anyone else who cares to answer....
Of the 5 points I made about areas where the Dems have to improve, which do you think are incorrect and/or innaccurate and why??
I'm not trying to wholly dismiss your points. I appreciate the perspective, but am no longer interested in those kid of nuances when we have something like Iraq going on.
But on you point 5: I don't really like how you throw all except for three posters on SS into the far left. I only talk about the utter incompetence of the current GOP leadership. How does that make me far left?
But on you point 5: I don't really like how you throw all except for three posters on SS into the far left.
You're right.....I forgot about Vitamin.....
Seriously.....I honestly think that a fair amount of people here don't really read and try to understand what I post as it's a lot easier to dismiss it as "He's one of "them".......
My catergorization is probably just as unfair, and I DO respect and appreciate folks like you and Motown(amongst others) who at least try to see both sides of an opinion.
The sad truth though, and I don't think you'll agrue this, is that the overwhelming political views on the Strut are at worst far left and at best left leaning.
As far as Iraq goes, I think you are overestimating the weight this sole issue will carry in '08.
And I believe that if they focus strictly on Iraq, they will lose again.
I don't see this as being Barack's game plan......but it may very well be Hillary's.
And mark my words, if France isn't ready for a female president in this day and age, neither is the U.S.
The Republicans have almost no chance of winning in 2008 for three very important reasons.
1) Bush (and his terrible record) has crushed the spirit of the far right wing of the party. They are totally in a daze and are planning to sit this one out just like 1996.
2) Republicans have nothing to run on right now. Most wedge issues are favoring Dems by a very large majority right now. This is the most important change in the electorate since 2000. The great equalizers for Republicans, national security and limited gov't, are now owned by Dems.
3) No good candidates. As you could see, the Republicans made the Dem debate look like a Springsteen concert by comparison. Rich is totally correct when he says that many people will vote strictly on visual appeal, which the GOP is seriously lacking.
You may be right, but I think this was the same basic attitude the Left had when approaching the '04 elections.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
As far as an attractive candidate, it's amazing what the "political machine" can do in a years time.
And mark my words, if France isn't ready for a female president in this day and age, neither is the U.S.
not sure about that one Rock. those 2 candidates had polarizing different views on the economic path France should take...not quite like the clinton/obama/edwards issue we are faced with here in the US.
but yes...as the election draws near, i would be not the least surprised if more attention is drawn to hillary's vagina (ewwwww) than her policies.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
anyone who is not a complete idiot will vote for a democrat unless they are one of the following:
1- an evangelical christian or religious fanatic who bases his or her vote on what their church says (abortion, stem cell, evolution, gays are evil, etc.).
2- the rich and selfish
3- bigoted anti-immigration folks (who also wouldnt vote for a woman or black person anyway)
4- people who actually paid attention to the terror alerts and think Guliani is relevant for bringing up 9-11 in response to every issue.
5- stubborn life-long conservatives who have pictures of Reagan hanging in their living rooms
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
anyone who is not a complete idiot will vote for a democrat unless they are one of the following:
1- an evangelical christian or religious fanatic who bases his or her vote on what their church says (abortion, stem cell, evolution, gays are evil, etc.).
2- the rich and selfish
3- bigoted anti-immigration folks (who also wouldnt vote for a woman or black person anyway)
4- people who actually paid attention to the terror alerts and think Guliani is relevant for bringing up 9-11 in response to every issue.
5- stubborn life-long conservatives who have pictures of Reagan hanging in their living rooms
This attitude drives more people away from the Dems than it attracts to them.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
anyone who is not a complete idiot will vote for a democrat unless they are one of the following:
1- an evangelical christian or religious fanatic who bases his or her vote on what their church says (abortion, stem cell, evolution, gays are evil, etc.).
2- the rich and selfish
3- bigoted anti-immigration folks (who also wouldnt vote for a woman or black person anyway)
4- people who actually paid attention to the terror alerts and think Guliani is relevant for bringing up 9-11 in response to every issue.
5- stubborn life-long conservatives who have pictures of Reagan hanging in their living rooms
This attitude drives more people away from the Dems than it attracts to them.
i'm not running for office, just stating my opinion. why don't you break down some characteristics of folks who will be voting republican in the 2008 election.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
which may be the exact reason so many republicans stay home when the vote comes...
the supreme court appears to be locked up for the next few years, so the normal 'hot-button' social issues that bring out lots of right leaning voters may not be as prominent this election.
and unless McCain totally reconfigures himself as the middle of the road 'straight-talk' candidate, there is no one on the republican side i can see swaying that many votes that would be meant for a democrat. in the end, i suspect that whomever the dem's pick, the great majority will follow suit and get behind that candidate.
Romney may be a robot who wears flip-flops, but i actually can get behind several of his economic goals. He also has some pretty legit economic advisor's on board.
Too bad republicans can't just run on a sensible economic platform anymore...their pandering for extremely conservative Christian votes deters many middle of the road voters imho.
why don't you break down some characteristics of folks who will be voting republican in the 2008 election.
You mean without using insulting or derogatory terms.....
I basically already did by explaining what the Dems needed to do to attract them away from the Reps.
Christians
Blue Collar workers who work for big corporations or who have family/friends who work for big corporations.
People who are alienated by Rosie O'Donnell and the likes.
People who think the Left is full of pompous assholes who look down on anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do.
These may not be the "intellectual" reasons you are looking/hoping for but they are very real.
And the Dems need to convince folks who voted for Bush in '00 and '04 to come to their side.......
I'm pretty sure calling them idiots won't do it.
This list is comedy.
I especially like the part about voting Republican in order to spite Rosie O'Donnell.
Not to spite, because they have been led to believe by the media that Rosie is the quintessential Lefty.
Laugh all you want, and keep believing the country is as smart as you think you are.
But next time Jerry Springer or Maury is on, tune in for a few minutes and come to grips with the fact that every one of those folks votes count as much as yours does!!!!
And I'm not saying that the above reasons are RIGHT, I'm just saying they are true.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
which may be the exact reason so many republicans stay home when the vote comes...
the supreme court appears to be locked up for the next few years, so the normal 'hot-button' social issues that bring out lots of right leaning voters may not be as prominent this election.
Oh, you can always get them fired up by promising to support amending the Constitution!
...their pandering for extremely conservative Christian votes deters many middle of the road voters imho.
This is an important point....
The true Conservative Christian vote is actually very small...
The mainstream Christian vote is substantially larger.
The Left alienates this segment by blasting the Conservative Christian and belittling Christianity on the whole.
At the end of the day both segments are still Christians and the mainstream ones will vote for the party they believe have their best interests.
And in their minds, as Christians, what party do you think that is??
For most of the Christians I know, it's the Democratic party, as they don't go for the gay bashing/victim-card playing/creationism that seems to define the conservative Christian ethos. It doesn't mean they think the Democratic party as being the uber-Christian party, but basically, they see Falwell and Robertson Dobson and William Donohue and think, "Those people certainly don't speak for me." Which is encouraging, really.
Your point is certainly taken about the perception that "the left belittles Christianity" on the whole, though. I do think that's perception more than reality, but like you point out, perception matters a whole lot when it comes to electoral politics (sad as that may be).
...their pandering for extremely conservative Christian votes deters many middle of the road voters imho.
This is an important point....
The true Conservative Christian vote is actually very small...
The mainstream Christian vote is substantially larger.
The Left alienates this segment by blasting the Conservative Christian and belittling Christianity on the whole.
At the end of the day both segments are still Christians and the mainstream ones will vote for the party they believe have their best interests.
And in their minds, as Christians, what party do you think that is??
first of all, aside from rosie o'donnel and maybe bill maher (who disagrees with all religion), who is belittling conservative christians? i think you watch too much of the view.
the left doesnt alienate mainstream christians, they just don't pander to outrageous points of view simply to appease religious views. don't you find it insulting that the gop has candidates who raise their hand to say "i don't believe in evolution."??
what about stem cell research? don't you think "mainstream christians" have family members with cancer or other terminal diseases?
give me a break dude. the left has never belittled mainstream christians. if anything, republicans are doing the belittling by treating them like brainwashed morons.
don't you find it insulting that the gop has candidates who raise their hand to say "i don't believe in evolution."??
on the cool, i am embarrassed as an American to think we are routinely funneling politicians into the mainstay who think the world is only 6,000 yrs old.
these same ass-clowns want to use science to say "hey look, the world on occasion goes through climate changes, and thus humans aren't to blame for global warming".
While it is true that Conservative Republican Christians will continue to vote republican. There are many not-even-jesus voters who wouldn't vote for a Dem even if he was Jesus himself.
Most Christians and most Evangelicals believe in the bible and the teachings of Christ. In the past, Republican operatives have been able to exploit one Christian issue. Abortion. Most Evangelicals and many Catholics and others, believe this should be decided not by a women and her doctor, but by government interference.
Many many many Christians, who believe that the government should control a women's reproductive choices are very disappointed with the anti-Christian stance that the Republicans have taken. Most Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus who commands his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and shelter the homeless. Christians are fed up with the cold shoulder that Republicans give the poor.
Jesus never spoke of homosexuality, the New Testament rarely mentions it. But helping the poor and working for peace are mentioned all the time by Jesus and the New Testament.
Most Christians believe (either literally or figuratively) that God saved ever species of animals from the flood and commanded man to be a steward over the land. Very few believe that this means we should destroy the planet and drive species into extinctions.
Now that anti-choice judges have control over the supreme court the Republicans have no issues to rally Christians to their sides.
All that said, I hardly think the Democrats have a lock on the election. I don't see where Hillary, Edwards, Obama and Richards look any better Romny, Guilianni, McCain, Thompson. They all have their high points (accept maybe Romny) and low points.
It is foolishness to suggest that France is not ready for a female president. They were not ready to elect one specific woman over one specific man. Most likely because she demonstrated that she had no military or foriegn policy knowledge much less experience.
Americans may not be ready to elect a woman, even if she was the second coming of the messiah. The rest of the world have already elected many women leaders.
The 2 largest Muslim nations in the world have democratically elected women as president.
German, England other Euro countries have.
Chile and other Latin American countries have elected women presidents.
Asian countries have.
That America is a sexist backwater should come as no surprise. Just don't blame it on the rest of the world.
Comments
1) tommy thompson was on bill maher this weekend and he said that he misheard the question (because his hearing aid was malfunctioning) and that he would have answered the opposite way (employers should NOT be able to discriminate due to sexual orientation).
2) hey bastard???
3) it is inexplicable that title vii provides a remedy for people who are sexually harassed due to sexual orientation, but (so far) does not give them a cause of action if they are fired due to sexual orientation.
4) there are several states (and cities...including philadelphia) where there are laws preventing employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
5) every successful discrimination case has to deal with some bullshit pretextual reason for firing. you think employers just admit that they canned someone cause of race/sex/age??? the fact that employers try (and are sometime succesful) at covering up their discrimination is an assinine reason for not having an anti-sexual orientation discrimination law.
So just because people will try and get around the laws we should just abolish those laws entirely?
Rich - I respect your post as based on your own experience, but every poll in the country has the Republican party 10 points down from Democrats not even including independents and "swing" voters. How do you explain this monumental shift in tides since the 2000 elections?
First off....any poll that shows a "swing" obviously includes swing votes.
And seeing that the Election is way down the road I assume you realize that today's polls don't mean squat.....just ask the French Socialists.
Let me ask you, or anyone else who cares to answer....
Of the 5 points I made about areas where the Dems have to improve, which do you think are incorrect and/or innaccurate and why??
No, this law should be abolished because it's illiberal. That it is also completely ineffective in furthering its intended goal is a subsidary observation.
1) Bush (and his terrible record) has crushed the spirit of the far right wing of the party. They are totally in a daze and are planning to sit this one out just like 1996.
2) Republicans have nothing to run on right now. Most wedge issues are favoring Dems by a very large majority right now. This is the most important change in the electorate since 2000. The great equalizers for Republicans, national security and limited gov't, are now owned by Dems.
3) No good candidates. As you could see, the Republicans made the Dem debate look like a Springsteen concert by comparison. Rich is totally correct when he says that many people will vote strictly on visual appeal, which the GOP is seriously lacking.
I'm not trying to wholly dismiss your points. I appreciate the perspective, but am no longer interested in those kid of nuances when we have something like Iraq going on.
But on you point 5: I don't really like how you throw all except for three posters on SS into the far left. I only talk about the utter incompetence of the current GOP leadership. How does that make me far left?
You're right.....I forgot about Vitamin.....
Seriously.....I honestly think that a fair amount of people here don't really read and try to understand what I post as it's a lot easier to dismiss it as "He's one of "them".......
My catergorization is probably just as unfair, and I DO respect and appreciate folks like you and Motown(amongst others) who at least try to see both sides of an opinion.
The sad truth though, and I don't think you'll agrue this, is that the overwhelming political views on the Strut are at worst far left and at best left leaning.
As far as Iraq goes, I think you are overestimating the weight this sole issue will carry in '08.
And I believe that if they focus strictly on Iraq, they will lose again.
I don't see this as being Barack's game plan......but it may very well be Hillary's.
And mark my words, if France isn't ready for a female president in this day and age, neither is the U.S.
You may be right, but I think this was the same basic attitude the Left had when approaching the '04 elections.
Besides the war and it's associated issues, what "wedge" issues do you think the Dems have a lock on with Mid-Americans??
As far as an attractive candidate, it's amazing what the "political machine" can do in a years time.
not sure about that one Rock. those 2 candidates had polarizing different views on the economic path France should take...not quite like the clinton/obama/edwards issue we are faced with here in the US.
but yes...as the election draws near, i would be not the least surprised if more attention is drawn to hillary's vagina (ewwwww) than her policies.
anyone who is not a complete idiot will vote for a democrat unless they are one of the following:
1- an evangelical christian or religious fanatic who bases his or her vote on what their church says (abortion, stem cell, evolution, gays are evil, etc.).
2- the rich and selfish
3- bigoted anti-immigration folks (who also wouldnt vote for a woman or black person anyway)
4- people who actually paid attention to the terror alerts and think Guliani is relevant for bringing up 9-11 in response to every issue.
5- stubborn life-long conservatives who have pictures of Reagan hanging in their living rooms
This attitude drives more people away from the Dems than it attracts to them.
i'm not running for office, just stating my opinion. why don't you break down some characteristics of folks who will be voting republican in the 2008 election.
You mean without using insulting or derogatory terms.....
I basically already did by explaining what the Dems needed to do to attract them away from the Reps.
Christians
Blue Collar workers who work for big corporations or who have family/friends who work for big corporations.
People who are alienated by Rosie O'Donnell and the likes.
People who think the Left is full of pompous assholes who look down on anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do.
These may not be the "intellectual" reasons you are looking/hoping for but they are very real.
And the Dems need to convince folks who voted for Bush in '00 and '04 to come to their side.......
I'm pretty sure calling them idiots won't do it.
This list is comedy.
I especially like the part about voting Republican in order to spite Rosie O'Donnell.
which may be the exact reason so many republicans stay home when the vote comes...
the supreme court appears to be locked up for the next few years, so the normal 'hot-button' social issues that bring out lots of right leaning voters may not be as prominent this election.
and unless McCain totally reconfigures himself as the middle of the road 'straight-talk' candidate, there is no one on the republican side i can see swaying that many votes that would be meant for a democrat. in the end, i suspect that whomever the dem's pick, the great majority will follow suit and get behind that candidate.
Romney may be a robot who wears flip-flops, but i actually can get behind several of his economic goals. He also has some pretty legit economic advisor's on board.
Too bad republicans can't just run on a sensible economic platform anymore...their pandering for extremely conservative Christian votes deters many middle of the road voters imho.
Not to spite, because they have been led to believe by the media that Rosie is the quintessential Lefty.
Laugh all you want, and keep believing the country is as smart as you think you are.
But next time Jerry Springer or Maury is on, tune in for a few minutes and come to grips with the fact that every one of those folks votes count as much as yours does!!!!
And I'm not saying that the above reasons are RIGHT, I'm just saying they are true.
Oh, you can always get them fired up by promising to support amending the Constitution!
This is an important point....
The true Conservative Christian vote is actually very small...
The mainstream Christian vote is substantially larger.
The Left alienates this segment by blasting the Conservative Christian and belittling Christianity on the whole.
At the end of the day both segments are still Christians and the mainstream ones will vote for the party they believe have their best interests.
And in their minds, as Christians, what party do you think that is??
Absurd.
"The Left" does not = the Democratic establishment
Nearly all major Democrats pander inappropriately to Christians.
For most of the Christians I know, it's the Democratic party, as they don't go for the gay bashing/victim-card playing/creationism that seems to define the conservative Christian ethos. It doesn't mean they think the Democratic party as being the uber-Christian party, but basically, they see Falwell and Robertson Dobson and William Donohue and think, "Those people certainly don't speak for me." Which is encouraging, really.
Your point is certainly taken about the perception that "the left belittles Christianity" on the whole, though. I do think that's perception more than reality, but like you point out, perception matters a whole lot when it comes to electoral politics (sad as that may be).
OK.....I'll admit it....I have absolutely no valid points and no clue about what I'm talking about.
The '08 election is already settled, the Dems are in the White House, why even have an election.
Anyone who votes Republican is an idiot.
More Christians vote Dem than Republican, always have, always will.
Rosie O'Donnell and the Hollyweird Political crews sway massive numbers of folks who used to vote Republican to their way of thinking...it's a fact.
Democrat = Smart Party
Republican = Dumbass Party.
And you wonder why we have some many problems......:eyesrolling:
Can I assume you don't live in the "Bible Belt"???
You can, and you'd be correct. Some of the Christian folks I'm talking about do, though.
The average voter thinks "The Left" = Democrat!!!
Just like the average voter thinks "Religious Right" = Republican
Yeah, Hillary singing Gospel tunes in Tunica is pretty inappropriate.
first of all, aside from rosie o'donnel and maybe bill maher (who disagrees with all religion), who is belittling conservative christians? i think you watch too much of the view.
the left doesnt alienate mainstream christians, they just don't pander to outrageous points of view simply to appease religious views. don't you find it insulting that the gop has candidates who raise their hand to say "i don't believe in evolution."??
what about stem cell research? don't you think "mainstream christians" have family members with cancer or other terminal diseases?
give me a break dude. the left has never belittled mainstream christians. if anything, republicans are doing the belittling by treating them like brainwashed morons.
on the cool, i am embarrassed as an American to think we are routinely funneling politicians into the mainstay who think the world is only 6,000 yrs old.
these same ass-clowns want to use science to say "hey look, the world on occasion goes through climate changes, and thus humans aren't to blame for global warming".
pick a fucking doctrine and stand by it
that shit gets me vexed.
Most Christians and most Evangelicals believe in the bible and the teachings of Christ. In the past, Republican operatives have been able to exploit one Christian issue. Abortion. Most Evangelicals and many Catholics and others, believe this should be decided not by a women and her doctor, but by government interference.
Many many many Christians, who believe that the government should control a women's reproductive choices are very disappointed with the anti-Christian stance that the Republicans have taken. Most Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus who commands his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick and shelter the homeless. Christians are fed up with the cold shoulder that Republicans give the poor.
Jesus never spoke of homosexuality, the New Testament rarely mentions it. But helping the poor and working for peace are mentioned all the time by Jesus and the New Testament.
Most Christians believe (either literally or figuratively) that God saved ever species of animals from the flood and commanded man to be a steward over the land. Very few believe that this means we should destroy the planet and drive species into extinctions.
Now that anti-choice judges have control over the supreme court the Republicans have no issues to rally Christians to their sides.
All that said, I hardly think the Democrats have a lock on the election. I don't see where Hillary, Edwards, Obama and Richards look any better Romny, Guilianni, McCain, Thompson. They all have their high points (accept maybe Romny) and low points.
Americans may not be ready to elect a woman, even if she was the second coming of the messiah. The rest of the world have already elected many women leaders.
The 2 largest Muslim nations in the world have democratically elected women as president.
German, England other Euro countries have.
Chile and other Latin American countries have elected women presidents.
Asian countries have.
That America is a sexist backwater should come as no surprise. Just don't blame it on the rest of the world.