Rich, while that may be true for some people there are just as many that are alienated by the stereotypical right wing. The bottom line is, are Americans smart enough to say "Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On" after having been fooled twice? Smart enough to see through the bs on either side?
I take issue with your point about working for corporations. I don't think a lot of American voters have a huge well of sympathy for big corps even when they work for them. It is my experience that most American employees of big corps know who's paying them but also know where most of the money they produce is going - and where their jobs might go if the corp decides it's cheaper to operate in another country.
At the corporation I used to work for, there was certainly a campaign against (then) AG Elliot Spitzer as an "evil regulateur" and some people drank the kool-aid. There is definitely a right wing culture at the top in big business. But from middle management down I don't think it was really one way or the other. It's a big swing block. I never once got the impression, and I'd traveled with this company all over, that people affiliated politically based on their employer or the type of work they were doing. There were local cultures from one office to another but it was never like "we work for ______, Inc. The Democrats are against us."
And seriously, I doubt that there is anyone who has read our exchange that doesn't understand the point I'm trying to make.
Including you.
But I appreciate the faux argument you're presenting, makes the day go by faster.
And for the record, I've mentioned Ms. O'Donnell in this thread exclusively, hardly "constant updates"....but it sounded good!!
I completely understand it--I am just not convinced by it.
You have yet to establish that Rosie O'Donnell is chasing "mainstream Christians" from the Democratic party.
Here's what you have done thus far:
1. Establish anecdotally that Rosie O'Donnell looms large in the universe of people that read supermarket tabloids--because her presence is forced upon you everytime you are at the grocery store;
2. Hint that she at some point said something that "mainstream Christians" might find denigrating.
You've still got a lot of work to do to complete your argument.
May I suggest that you invite one of these devout and disaffected Rosie O'Donnell hatters to join us on the board and substantiate your perspective?
And seriously, I doubt that there is anyone who has read our exchange that doesn't understand the point I'm trying to make.
Including you.
But I appreciate the faux argument you're presenting, makes the day go by faster.
And for the record, I've mentioned Ms. O'Donnell in this thread exclusively, hardly "constant updates"....but it sounded good!!
I completely understand it--I am just not convinced by it.
You have yet to establish that Rosie O'Donnell is chasing "mainstream Christians" from the Democratic party.
Here's what you have done thus far:
1. Establish anecdotally that Rosie O'Donnell looms large in the universe of people that read supermarket tabloids--because her presence is forced upon you everytime you are at the grocery store;
2. Hint that she at some point said something that "mainstream Christians" might find denigrating.
You've still got a lot of work to do to complete your argument.
May I suggest that you invite one of these devout and disaffected Rosie O'Donnell hatters to join us on the board and substantiate your pespective?
How about if I list more than 10 "Christian" websites that cite Ms. O'Donnell, her ties to the left, and her Anti-Christian websites....would THAT convince you??
You must not realize that the Bill O'Reilly's of the world USE her comments in order to alienate folks.
You don't pay me enough to jump through your hoops.
Why don't you tackle the Ted Turner part of the argument.
Rich, while that may be true for some people there are just as many that are alienated by the stereotypical right wing. The bottom line is, are Americans smart enough to say "Fuck You And The Horse You Rode In On" after having been fooled twice? Smart enough to see through the bs on either side?
I absolutely agree, and if I were to post about what the Reps had to do to improve their image and attract voters I'd use this as an example[/b]
I take issue with your point about working for corporations. I don't think a lot of American voters have a huge well of sympathy for big corps even when they work for them. It is my experience that most American employees of big corps know who's paying them but also know where most of the money they produce is going - and where their jobs might go if the corp decides it's cheaper to operate in another country.
Sympathy, No.....Dependency, Yes.....No one shits on their own paycheck[/b]
At the corporation I used to work for, there was certainly a campaign against (then) AG Elliot Spitzer as an "evil regulateur" and some people drank the kool-aid. There is definitely a right wing culture at the top in big business. But from middle management down I don't think it was really one way or the other. It's a big swing block. I never once got the impression, and I'd traveled with this company all over, that people affiliated politically based on their employer or the type of work they were doing. There were local cultures from one office to another but it was never like "we work for ______, Inc. The Democrats are against us."
Right - all I'm saying is that the voting culture really follows the overall culture of the area a lot more closely than the culture or size of the company they work for. Unions vote differently than non-Unionized white collar management level blocks. And those votes change based on a million other factors. There are certainly things the Democratic party stands to work on but being nice to corporations in order to garner votes is not one of them.
And seriously, I doubt that there is anyone who has read our exchange that doesn't understand the point I'm trying to make.
Including you.
But I appreciate the faux argument you're presenting, makes the day go by faster.
And for the record, I've mentioned Ms. O'Donnell in this thread exclusively, hardly "constant updates"....but it sounded good!!
I completely understand it--I am just not convinced by it.
You have yet to establish that Rosie O'Donnell is chasing "mainstream Christians" from the Democratic party.
Here's what you have done thus far:
1. Establish anecdotally that Rosie O'Donnell looms large in the universe of people that read supermarket tabloids--because her presence is forced upon you everytime you are at the grocery store;
2. Hint that she at some point said something that "mainstream Christians" might find denigrating.
You've still got a lot of work to do to complete your argument.
May I suggest that you invite one of these devout and disaffected Rosie O'Donnell hatters to join us on the board and substantiate your pespective?
How about if I list more than 10 "Christian" websites that cite Ms. O'Donnell, her ties to the left, and her Anti-Christian websites....would THAT convince you??
No, it wouldn't--"mainstream Christians" don't strain their worldview through "Christian" websites; those are pretty much the province of religious extremists.
You must not realize that the Bill O'Reilly's of the world USE her comments in order to alienate folks.
Again, Bill O'Reilly preaches to the converted--he is not really a force amongst "mainstream Christians". Bill O'Reilly is not capable of costing the Democrats votes no matter what service he presses Rosie O'Donnell's name into; these are not votes that were ever available to the Democrats.
Why don't you tackle the Ted Turner part of the argument.
Ted Turner is an eccentric billionaire who has long been considerably--and very publicly--to the left of the Democratic party. Ted Turner is not = the Democratic party and I think most people realize that. His support for certain Democratic causes has been a constant for decades and doesn't seem to have alienated potential Democratic voters during previous election cycles. You're going to have to show me the exit polls that suggest otherwise.
Lost in some of this debate is that the Democratic candidate WON the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000. If anything, Bush winning in 2004 was an aberration and one largely fueled by security fears - voters historically don't usually dump a president when the country is in a state of war (and in 2004, the Iraq War was still about 1.5 years old and not nearly the unmitigated disaster that we know know it is) and still stressed from 9/11.
Exit polling (grain of salt alert!) suggested that what most swing voters went for in 2004 was a sense of stability and security and that meant keeping the incumbent president around - it also didn't help that Kerry was not the most likable alternative.
I'm not saying the culture war is a complete fabrication but this idea that Rosie O'Donnell (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter) are swaying large numbers of the voting populus either Right or Left doesn't ring true for me either. Seriously, Rosie mouths off and middle of road Xians go scuttling off to embrace dudes who don't believe in evolution, would fire gay people from their jobs for being gay, repeal Roe v. Wade, and continue a failed policy in Iraq?
Not to mention candidates who've cheated on their wives, flipped flopped on huge social issues and are affected by the scandal-ridden Bush admin?
I think there are both emotional and rational reasons to vote towards the right but Rosie isn't part of that equation.
I'm not saying the culture war is a complete fabrication but this idea that Rosie O'Donnell (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter) are swaying large numbers of the voting populus either Right or Left doesn't ring true for me either. Seriously, Rosie mouths off and middle of road Xians go scuttling off to embrace dudes who don't believe in evolution, would fire gay people from their jobs for being gay, repeal Roe v. Wade, and continue a failed policy in Iraq?
Do not dismiss Rock's local grocery store checkout lane experience!
Lost in some of this debate is that the Democratic candidate WON the popular vote in 1992, 1996 and 2000. If anything, Bush winning in 2004 was an aberration and one largely fueled by security fears - voters historically don't usually dump a president when the country is in a state of war (and in 2004, the Iraq War was still about 1.5 years old and not nearly the unmitigated disaster that we know know it is) and still stressed from 9/11.
Exit polling (grain of salt alert!) suggested that what most swing voters went for in 2004 was a sense of stability and security and that meant keeping the incumbent president around - it also didn't help that Kerry was not the most likable alternative.
I'm not saying the culture war is a complete fabrication but this idea that Rosie O'Donnell (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter) are swaying large numbers of the voting populus either Right or Left doesn't ring true for me either. Seriously, Rosie mouths off and middle of road Xians go scuttling off to embrace dudes who don't believe in evolution, would fire gay people from their jobs for being gay, repeal Roe v. Wade, and continue a failed policy in Iraq?
Not to mention candidates who've cheated on their wives, flipped flopped on huge social issues and are affected by the scandal-ridden Bush admin?
I think there are both emotional and rational reasons to vote towards the right but Rosie isn't part of that equation.
Thank you.
Also in regards to Christians, Rock youa re only speaking about the MOST vocal of christians. Most of your Christians don't like being thrown into the conservative minority of the religion. Most Christians that I know think for themselves and at this point like I stated above even though they may have more conservative viewpoints on government, they are fairly open minded to your stem cell research, gay marriage issues, and immigration. I would venture to say that maybe 1 out of 8 or 10 takes on your more extreme views.
where I tend to differ with them is in governance and spending. Where they overall feel that the military and taxes are extremely important issues, I do not. Overall everyone I talk to these days is not happy with teh current state and after 8 years of Republican Gvernanace they have had enough.
Also, if you want to find a Christian Organization that has taken a stance on stem cell research that supports it, ROCK simply look at the UCC Among others:
"United Church of Christ: The UCC is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within ???ethically sound guidelines...and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health.??? They cite their belief in Jesus??? healing as foundational for their support of this research. "
here is a link to christian & jewish organizations and their stance:
If you do a brief overview it looks like you have a 1/3 1/3 1/3 split between Pro, Opposed, and Undecided. With that said its kind of hard to even make this part of the debate and qualify even a majority of christians as being against stem cell research unless you get your talking points from FOX News and other squawkbox type talk a whole lot but don't say anythign type programs.
We have 15 months to see how this plays out.....it will be interesting.
Maybe at some point down the road one or more of my points will ring true to you.....maybe not.
I'm certainly not going to change or stop voicing my opinion because certain folks don't agree with it.
I agree with some of the points that many of you have made and disagree with others.
Hopefully you can say the same about mine.
Rock the martyr.
Did anyone tell you to stop voicing your opinion?
Seriously.
Dissent is what this board is ALL about. I almost never hear a call for censorship, least of all for your views Rock. You floated out a theory that others people thought didn't hold water. Nothing wrong with that - happens to all of us here. (See my "Me Phi Me is going to be huuuuuge!" post from 1992, for example).
This whole "I'm not going to change my opinion" comment is pure
Sounds more like, "I'm tired of arguing a point that I can't seem to convince anyone of."
At least Rosie should feel good knowing you're following her moves
We have 15 months to see how this plays out.....it will be interesting.
Maybe at some point down the road one or more of my points will ring true to you.....maybe not.
I'm certainly not going to change or stop voicing my opinion because certain folks don't agree with it.
I agree with some of the points that many of you have made and disagree with others.
Hopefully you can say the same about mine.
Rock the martyr.
Did anyone tell you to stop voicing your opinion?
Seriously.
Dissent is what this board is ALL about. I almost never hear a call for censorship, least of all for your views Rock. You floated out a theory that others people thought didn't hold water. Nothing wrong with that - happens to all of us here. (See my "Me Phi Me is going to be huuuuuge!" post from 1992, for example).
This whole "I'm not going to change my opinion" comment is pure
Sounds more like, "I'm tired of arguing a point that I can't seem to convince anyone of."
At least Rosie should feel good knowing you're following her moves
Why would I change my opinion when no one here has presented any evidence to the contrary beyond "I don't believe it" and "All my experiences tell me".
Taking my opinions to task without presenting solid evidence to the contrary is
"Bring people here to prove my point"....Bullshit....You bring people here to DISPROVE it!!
For those who respect my opinion and don't feel moved to dispute it...Great.
For those of you who feel motivated to question or attack them....even better, just don't hit me with "My opinion is more accurate than yours" without proving yours or disproving mine.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Rockadelic defeated by a conspiracy of silence!
When you can present me a dumb ass, that actually admits they're a dumb ass I'll concede defeat.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Rockadelic defeated by a conspiracy of silence!
When you can present me a dumb ass, that actually admits they're a dumb ass I'll concede defeat.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Rockadelic defeated by a conspiracy of silence!
When you can present me a dumb ass, that actually admits they're a dumb ass I'll concede defeat.
No sarcasm whatsoever....(I thought for sure you'd go for my "Educate my dumbass" comment...............you're slipping)
My final word on the topic....(probably)......(maybe)......(I doubt it).....
People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter absolutely do NOT[/b] alienate people away from the Republican Party
The reason being that they are NOT[/b] prominent members of the Party, nor is anyone stupid enough to associate them with the Right or the Republican Party itself.
Middle of the road 'swing" voters are NOT[/b] turned off by these morons, and NOT[/b] a single potential Republican vote has been effected by their rhetoric.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
What do they think Congress should do now?
Former Sen. John Edwards said Congress shouldn't back down. "If we don't have the votes to override the veto, the Congress should send him another bill with the funding authority for the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal," the Democratic presidential candidate said.
The public agrees. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 57 percent want Congress to pass another bill with funding and timetables. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)
The poll surveyed 1,028 American adults between Friday and Sunday. It has a sampling error of 3 percentage points. (Interactive: Poll results)
Another proposal is to replace timetables with benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to show progress toward a political resolution.
"If they can't even get a formula for distributing the oil, if they can't even begin to take over 'Iraqization,' how much longer are we supposed to stay there with these goals?" Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said Sunday in an interview with CNN.
A bill with benchmarks instead of a timetable gets slightly more public support, 61 percent.
The reason the public supports a timetable for withdrawal may be because the four-year-old war remains unpopular, with nearly two-thirds of the public opposed. Of those polled, 34 percent said they support the war, while 65 percent expressed opposition.
But while previous surveys show Americans are pessimistic about the outcome of the war, a majority of 55 percent said they were not yet willing to declare it "lost." The prevailing view, held by 63 percent of Americans polled in April, is that neither side is winning.
Fifty-four percent said they don't believe the Bush administration's assertion that the war is the "central front" in the war on terrorist groups that was launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Forty-three percent said they agreed.
Mainstream Christians and Stem Cell Research: embryonic stem cell research enjoys support from the Episcopal Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/stemcell/
Mainstream Christians and abortion: In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1 American Baptist Churches-USA, American Ethical Union, American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Council of Jewish Federations, Episcopal Church (USA), Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot, Moravian Church in America-Northern Province, Na'Amat USA, National Council of Jewish Women, Presbyterian Church (USA), Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.
Religious groups other than denominations: Catholics for Free Choice, Episcopal Women's Caucus, Evangelicals for Choice, Jewish Women International, Lutheran Women's Caucus, North American Federation of Temple Youth, Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation, Women of Reform Judaism, Women's American ORT, Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren, Women's League for Conservative Judaism.
Evengelicals and the enviorment: On the Care of Creation An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation The Earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof - Psalm 24:1
As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.
Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation.
Because we have sinned, we have failed in our stewardship of creation. Therefore we repent of the way we have polluted, distorted, or destroyed so much of the Creator's work.
Because in Christ God has healed our alienation from God and extended to us the first fruits of the reconciliation of all things, we commit ourselves to working in the power of the Holy Spirit to share the Good News of Christ in word and deed, to work for the reconciliation of all people in Christ, and to extend Christ's healing to suffering creation.
Because we await the time when even the groaning creation will be restored to wholeness, we commit ourselves to work vigorously to protect and heal that creation for the honor and glory of the Creator---whom we know dimly through creation, but meet fully through Scripture and in Christ. We and our children face a growing crisis in the health of the creation in which we are embedded, and through which, by God's grace, we are sustained. Yet we continue to degrade that creation.
Anyone who believes that there is some natural connection between religious belifes and the Republican party insults all who are religious. Only those who use their religion to promote their own intolerance, corruption, warmongering and profitiering will turn to the Republican party.
Comments
They sell MILLIONS of them......apparently her TV show is HIGHLY rated....yet you don't know anyone who watches it.
This just proves you are out of touch with mainstream America, which is probably something to be proud of.
Including you.
But I appreciate the faux argument you're presenting, makes the day go by faster.
And for the record, I've mentioned Ms. O'Donnell in this thread exclusively, hardly "constant updates"....but it sounded good!!
I take issue with your point about working for corporations. I don't think a lot of American voters have a huge well of sympathy for big corps even when they work for them. It is my experience that most American employees of big corps know who's paying them but also know where most of the money they produce is going - and where their jobs might go if the corp decides it's cheaper to operate in another country.
At the corporation I used to work for, there was certainly a campaign against (then) AG Elliot Spitzer as an "evil regulateur" and some people drank the kool-aid. There is definitely a right wing culture at the top in big business. But from middle management down I don't think it was really one way or the other. It's a big swing block. I never once got the impression, and I'd traveled with this company all over, that people affiliated politically based on their employer or the type of work they were doing. There were local cultures from one office to another but it was never like "we work for ______, Inc. The Democrats are against us."
I completely understand it--I am just not convinced by it.
You have yet to establish that Rosie O'Donnell is chasing "mainstream Christians" from the Democratic party.
Here's what you have done thus far:
1. Establish anecdotally that Rosie O'Donnell looms large in the universe of people that read supermarket tabloids--because her presence is forced upon you everytime you are at the grocery store;
2. Hint that she at some point said something that "mainstream Christians" might find denigrating.
You've still got a lot of work to do to complete your argument.
May I suggest that you invite one of these devout and disaffected Rosie O'Donnell hatters to join us on the board and substantiate your perspective?
How about if I list more than 10 "Christian" websites that cite Ms. O'Donnell, her ties to the left, and her Anti-Christian websites....would THAT convince you??
You must not realize that the Bill O'Reilly's of the world USE her comments in order to alienate folks.
You don't pay me enough to jump through your hoops.
Why don't you tackle the Ted Turner part of the argument.
Nobody gets fired for how they vote.
It's against the law.
But certainly you know that historically Unions have been one of the most attractive blocks of voters.
Voting and the way you make your living are definitely tied together.
But certainly you know that historically UNIONS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD IN EVERY ELECTION.
Of course.....Unions = Anti-Corporation
No, it wouldn't--"mainstream Christians" don't strain their worldview through "Christian" websites; those are pretty much the province of religious extremists.
Again, Bill O'Reilly preaches to the converted--he is not really a force amongst "mainstream Christians". Bill O'Reilly is not capable of costing the Democrats votes no matter what service he presses Rosie O'Donnell's name into; these are not votes that were ever available to the Democrats.
Ted Turner is an eccentric billionaire who has long been considerably--and very publicly--to the left of the Democratic party. Ted Turner is not = the Democratic party and I think most people realize that. His support for certain Democratic causes has been a constant for decades and doesn't seem to have alienated potential Democratic voters during previous election cycles. You're going to have to show me the exit polls that suggest otherwise.
Exit polling (grain of salt alert!) suggested that what most swing voters went for in 2004 was a sense of stability and security and that meant keeping the incumbent president around - it also didn't help that Kerry was not the most likable alternative.
I'm not saying the culture war is a complete fabrication but this idea that Rosie O'Donnell (or Bill O'Reilly for that matter) are swaying large numbers of the voting populus either Right or Left doesn't ring true for me either. Seriously, Rosie mouths off and middle of road Xians go scuttling off to embrace dudes who don't believe in evolution, would fire gay people from their jobs for being gay, repeal Roe v. Wade, and continue a failed policy in Iraq?
Not to mention candidates who've cheated on their wives, flipped flopped on huge social issues and are affected by the scandal-ridden Bush admin?
I think there are both emotional and rational reasons to vote towards the right but Rosie isn't part of that equation.
Do not dismiss Rock's local grocery store checkout lane experience!
Thank you.
Also in regards to Christians, Rock youa re only speaking about the MOST vocal of christians. Most of your Christians don't like being thrown into the conservative minority of the religion. Most Christians that I know think for themselves and at this point like I stated above even though they may have more conservative viewpoints on government, they are fairly open minded to your stem cell research, gay marriage issues, and immigration. I would venture to say that maybe 1 out of 8 or 10 takes on your more extreme views.
where I tend to differ with them is in governance and spending. Where they overall feel that the military and taxes are extremely important issues, I do not. Overall everyone I talk to these days is not happy with teh current state and after 8 years of Republican Gvernanace they have had enough.
Also, if you want to find a Christian Organization that has taken a stance on stem cell research that supports it, ROCK simply look at the UCC Among others:
"United Church of Christ: The UCC is fully supportive of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research within ???ethically sound guidelines...and the limitations set forth by the National Institutes of Health.??? They cite their belief in Jesus??? healing as foundational for their support of this research. "
here is a link to christian & jewish organizations and their stance:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/religion_stem_stell.html
If you do a brief overview it looks like you have a 1/3 1/3 1/3 split between Pro, Opposed, and Undecided. With that said its kind of hard to even make this part of the debate and qualify even a majority of christians as being against stem cell research unless you get your talking points from FOX News and other squawkbox type talk a whole lot but don't say anythign type programs.
Maybe at some point down the road one or more of my points will ring true to you.....maybe not.
I'm certainly not going to change or stop voicing my opinion because certain folks don't agree with it.
I agree with some of the points that many of you have made and disagree with others.
Hopefully you can say the same about mine.
Rock the martyr.
Did anyone tell you to stop voicing your opinion?
Rosie O'Donnell perhaps?
Seriously.
Dissent is what this board is ALL about. I almost never hear a call for censorship, least of all for your views Rock. You floated out a theory that others people thought didn't hold water. Nothing wrong with that - happens to all of us here. (See my "Me Phi Me is going to be huuuuuge!" post from 1992, for example).
This whole "I'm not going to change my opinion" comment is pure
Sounds more like, "I'm tired of arguing a point that I can't seem to convince anyone of."
At least Rosie should feel good knowing you're following her moves
Martyr for a kingdom of one....very attractive.
Why would I change my opinion when no one here has presented any evidence to the contrary beyond "I don't believe it" and "All my experiences tell me".
Taking my opinions to task without presenting solid evidence to the contrary is
"Bring people here to prove my point"....Bullshit....You bring people here to DISPROVE it!!
For those who respect my opinion and don't feel moved to dispute it...Great.
For those of you who feel motivated to question or attack them....even better, just don't hit me with "My opinion is more accurate than yours" without proving yours or disproving mine.
If there is concrete, indisputable evidence to support a theory it's no longer an opinion, it's fact.
Sure....but it's pretty hard to present facts about an event that will happen 15 months from now.
I simply said this is what I think the Dems need to do and here are the reasons why I think it.
When I post that I think that a high profile, often quoted celebrity or Billionaire have influence over the lesser nuanced voter based on their quotes and claims of political affiliation.....it's pretty hard to produce "facts" to that effect when for the most part, no voter who WAS influenced by these idiots would ever actually admit it.
Rockadelic defeated by a conspiracy of silence!
When you can present me a dumb ass, that actually admits they're a dumb ass I'll concede defeat.
"OK.....I'll admit it....I have absolutely no valid points and no clue about what I'm talking about."
No sarcasm whatsoever....(I thought for sure you'd go for my "Educate my dumbass" comment...............you're slipping)
My final word on the topic....(probably)......(maybe)......(I doubt it).....
People like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter absolutely do NOT[/b] alienate people away from the Republican Party
The reason being that they are NOT[/b] prominent members of the Party, nor is anyone stupid enough to associate them with the Right or the Republican Party itself.
Middle of the road 'swing" voters are NOT[/b] turned off by these morons, and NOT[/b] a single potential Republican vote has been effected by their rhetoric.
Thank You Very Much.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/schneider.iraq.poll/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
What do they think Congress should do now?
Former Sen. John Edwards said Congress shouldn't back down. "If we don't have the votes to override the veto, the Congress should send him another bill with the funding authority for the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal," the Democratic presidential candidate said.
The public agrees. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 57 percent want Congress to pass another bill with funding and timetables. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)
The poll surveyed 1,028 American adults between Friday and Sunday. It has a sampling error of 3 percentage points. (Interactive: Poll results)
Another proposal is to replace timetables with benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to show progress toward a political resolution.
"If they can't even get a formula for distributing the oil, if they can't even begin to take over 'Iraqization,' how much longer are we supposed to stay there with these goals?" Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said Sunday in an interview with CNN.
A bill with benchmarks instead of a timetable gets slightly more public support, 61 percent.
The reason the public supports a timetable for withdrawal may be because the four-year-old war remains unpopular, with nearly two-thirds of the public opposed. Of those polled, 34 percent said they support the war, while 65 percent expressed opposition.
But while previous surveys show Americans are pessimistic about the outcome of the war, a majority of 55 percent said they were not yet willing to declare it "lost." The prevailing view, held by 63 percent of Americans polled in April, is that neither side is winning.
Fifty-four percent said they don't believe the Bush administration's assertion that the war is the "central front" in the war on terrorist groups that was launched after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Forty-three percent said they agreed.
embryonic stem cell research enjoys support from the Episcopal Church (USA), the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.
http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/stemcell/
Mainstream Christians and abortion:
In general, these either promote a woman's right to choose an abortion, or are relatively silent on the matter. A number of liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish faith groups and organizations have publicly stated that abortions are sometimes an acceptable option, and should remain legal. According to lists prepared by The Secular Web and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, they include, in alphabetic order: 1 American Baptist Churches-USA,
American Ethical Union,
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee,
American Jewish Committee,
American Jewish Congress,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),
Council of Jewish Federations,
Episcopal Church (USA),
Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations and Havurot,
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province,
Na'Amat USA,
National Council of Jewish Women,
Presbyterian Church (USA),
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations,
Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Christ,
United Methodist Church,
United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism.
Religious groups other than denominations: Catholics for Free Choice,
Episcopal Women's Caucus,
Evangelicals for Choice,
Jewish Women International,
Lutheran Women's Caucus,
North American Federation of Temple Youth,
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation,
Women of Reform Judaism,
Women's American ORT,
Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren,
Women's League for Conservative Judaism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm
Evengelicals and the enviorment:
On the Care of Creation
An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation
The Earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof - Psalm 24:1
As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems.
Because we worship and honor the Creator, we seek to cherish and care for the creation.
Because we have sinned, we have failed in our stewardship of creation. Therefore we repent of the way we have polluted, distorted, or destroyed so much of the Creator's work.
Because in Christ God has healed our alienation from God and extended to us the first fruits of the reconciliation of all things, we commit ourselves to working in the power of the Holy Spirit to share the Good News of Christ in word and deed, to work for the reconciliation of all people in Christ, and to extend Christ's healing to suffering creation.
Because we await the time when even the groaning creation will be restored to wholeness, we commit ourselves to work vigorously to protect and heal that creation for the honor and glory of the Creator---whom we know dimly through creation, but meet fully through Scripture and in Christ. We and our children face a growing crisis in the health of the creation in which we are embedded, and through which, by God's grace, we are sustained. Yet we continue to degrade that creation.
and on and on for pages. http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php
Anyone who believes that there is some natural connection between religious belifes and the Republican party insults all who are religious. Only those who use their religion to promote their own intolerance, corruption, warmongering and profitiering will turn to the Republican party.