0
   

Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jun, 2006 09:50 pm
No
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jun, 2006 09:59 pm
I did not think that Mr. Amigo could make reference to the specific attacks on Mrs. Clinton in the main stream media in the past year or two because the main stream media does not attack Mrs, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 04:35 am
Asherman

You dead wrong on what I'm saying. I'm pointing out something that has been obvious for a long time; the religious right have an inordinate amount of influence in the Republican Party.

I am also pointing out that there are a large number of Americans who believe in that horse pucky religion that the Left Behind series of books allude to. This is evident by the number of books sold. The seventh book in the series sold 1.4 million copies before it was released.

You noticed that I said, "Here's what a lot of them fantasize about", not the majority or all of the religious right that support the president.

Quote:
Next Xingu gives us an article voicing extreme views, implying that it is believed by 57% of the "practicing Christians" of America.

I'm implying? You mean I'm implying in the same manner Bush implied that Saddam Hussein had close ties with Al Qaeda by mentioning the words "terrorist", "Al Qaeda" or "Osama bin Laden" whenever he spoke Saddams name? You mean I'm implying in the same way you imply the Democrat Party is controlled by socialist and communist?

Quote:
LeHay has next to zero impact on public policy in the United States, though there probably are a few Congressmen who think he's cool ... after all there are a lot of them representing virtually all aspects of American political and religious belief.

LeHay himself may have zero impact but the religious right does have impact with the Republican Party. Note the recent FMA that was recently defeated in Congress. Isn't it funny that when ever the conservatives purpose a Constitutional amendment its usually to take away someone's rights?

Quote:
Evangelical Christians have been a powerful force in American politics at many points in the nation's history. They played a key role in the rise of the abolitionist movement, in the triumph of the progressive movement, and more recently in the rise of the religious right in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite considerable ambivalence about engaging in politics, many American evangelicals have come to believe that participation in politics is necessary to defend their values and promote their vision of society. Their growing solidarity on behalf of the Republican Party has been critical to the party's electoral successes of the past decade.
Indeed, in many respects, white evangelicals have become the bedrock of the GOP. In the 2004 election, they were the largest single demographic group among Bush voters, constituting fully 35% of his total. By comparison, African Americans - the most loyal of Democratic constituencies - constituted only about one-fifth (21%) of Kerry's voters.
The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather of their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The proportion of the population composed of white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 22% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
SOURCE

By the way, if the evangelicals in the Pew Report comprise 22% of America's population then at a current estimated population of 298 million we would have over 65 million evangelicals. If I take a very conservative figure of 50% that means over 32 million Americans believe in that religious horse pucky. I would say that is a significant number of people. And mind you I believe that percentage is larger than 50%.

Quote:
Why is it that Xingu expends so much time and energy trying to convince the world that the United States is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL, yet so seldom has the slightest criticism of enemies who have sworn to destroy us?

Because I am an American, not a Muslim. I am concerned what my country does. Bush has harmed this country by his invasion of Iraq. He has needlessly killed thousands of Americans, created new terrorist and has produced a huge deficit that may very well come to haunt us in the future. He did this against a country that was of no threat to us. So yes, I will criticize a president that kills Americans through his incompetence, his ignorance and his ideology. And as much as you dislike it, it is my right.

Quote:
Congress and the Administration are mostly elected by the people, and the people of the United States are not in mental shackles.

The people elect the president and Congress but they don't elect the people that influence and buy them. The neocons had a powerful influence on this administration. That's why we're in Iraq.

Quote:
Those who are Socialists, Marxists, etc. will probably go to their graves hating the whole process of American political life, and their only allies are the left-wing of the Democratic Party. The left-wing of the Democratic Party can't seem to get beyond their hatred of the GOP and this President.

Funny. I suppose we could say the Right Wing of the Republican Party couldn't get beyond their hatred of Bill Clinton. No double standard here is there Asherman.

I see you still like to bring up the old "Marxist" word, like some old McCarthite. I guess there's a communist under every rug and in every closet waiting to scrape the Constitution, promote atheism and kill babies the minute the Democrats get into office. These days the word Marxist don't mean much. But I suppose if you still live in the 60's and 70's it's a scary word. And if you believe McCarthy was a great American than I can see why you would still be hung up on Marxist. They're everywhere!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2006 03:21 am
Perhaps XIngu is correct. Perhaps evangelical Christians do yield an influence that is worrisome to some.

So what can we do about it?

Should we create concentration camps for them? No, that would be unconstitutional because of the First Amendment. Free Speech and all that.

Should we try the approved method? Should we make sure that the people who agree with us get to the polls so that people in the Congress will not have to pay attention to those evangelical Christians?

Of course, that's the way to do it.

Whining will solve nothing!!!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2006 04:24 am
Quote:
Whining will solve nothing!!!


Whining Bernard? Rolling Eyes I'm not whining, I'm making an observation.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 02:33 am
Ok- Make an observation. And then? Do you think that those who think you are incorrect will buy your "observation"?

Again, if you are worried about the "alleged" effect of the Evangelical movement on the laws of this country, search out the people who are opposed to them and vote for those people. Contribute to the politicians who agree with you.

In the USA, even Evangelicals have a right to their opinion and a right to lobby legislators.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 02:39 am
BernardR wrote:
In the USA, even Evangelicals have a right to their opinion and a right to lobby legislators.


In Germany, we have 27 million Evangelicals, who constitute 33 percent of the population (only 04% less than the Roman Catholics) ... and predominant in all our governments (besides that in Bavaria) Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 02:43 am
Do they cause the same kind of trouble in Germany that xingu says our Evangelicals cause in the USA, Mr. Hinteler. I think that xingu is saying that the evangelicals in the USA are able to get legislation passed which is breaking down what should be a more secular society!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 04:59 am
Well, actually the German Evangilicals are quite procressive - reagarding other churches, especially in the USa, liberals, as you would say.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:13 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, actually the German Evangilicals are quite procressive - reagarding other churches, especially in the USa, liberals, as you would say.


That is very interesting.


Why do you think that is?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:20 am
Has always been - since they "started business" in 16th century.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:22 am
Well, there are - of course - some very conservatives among the Protestants as well as there are a few more left-wing, progressive Catholics.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 05:45 am
Bernard wrote:
Again, if you are worried about the "alleged" effect of the Evangelical movement on the laws of this country, search out the people who are opposed to them and vote for those people. Contribute to the politicians who agree with you.

In the USA, even Evangelicals have a right to their opinion and a right to lobby legislators.


True, they do have an opinion. I never said they didn't. I said they have a undue influence over the Republican Party. Here's a recent example.

I'm not worried about this influence, as you seem to think, but I take note that they love to preach freedom and small central government. Then they bring forth proposed constitutional amendments that will deny some right to some American. And as for a smaller government under the Republicans? That's a laugh.

Asherman seems to think, or at least he implys, the socialist and communist have the greatest influence in the Democrat Party.

Bernard wrote:
Do you think that those who think you are incorrect will buy your "observation"?


This is pretty dumb Bernard. Are condemning me for doing the same thing your doing? If none of us are allowed to express their opinion or make observations why bother to have a forum?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 08:43 am
Yes, I suppose I do. I believe that the Socialists and Marxists comprise only a small part of the Democratic Part, but that they are especially vocal and the Party Platform seems consistently to mirror Social Democratic views. The Party itself has adopted the position that the Federal government can and should guarantee that no one (except those rotten conservative wealthy Republicans) should be entitled to cradle to the grave protection from unhappiness. It seems that the Democratic Party's highest priority (after political control) is social programs engineered to eliminate all class distinctions. No social program can cost too much, nor should any money be spent on the military and national security.

Already, the National Debt is a matter of grave concern as a result of entitlement programs, most of which date from the FDR and LBJ administrations. These are often laudable programs in intent, but the cost to the nation has progressively grown more difficult to bear. The Federal Budget is dominated by items/programs that are sacrosanct and untouchable. In order to fund these programs, as dictated by law, the Executive must cut funding to other Federal programs. In order to cut the deficit it will be necessary to cut the funding to some of those programs by as much as 100% in some cases. If entitlement spending could be cut by 50% and the money redirected funds to keep Social Security sound, and provide a National Medical Insurance available to all might become possible. Those are also "socially responsible" programs, and they they would benefit more of the American People than some of the programs that would never be missed. The primary value of many of these programs protected by the Democratics, is that they have forced every administration to make tough choices with the small amount of money left over to fund all other Federal programs. We need to seriously reexamine our national spending priorities. Yes, Dorothy, there are Republican leaders who are just as fiscally irresponsible as Democrats.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 09:11 am
Cut back on the pork to unpatriotic world corporations and excessive military spending, and the needed social programs would have adequate funding and possibly even Clinton's budget surplus could be restored.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jun, 2006 05:40 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Cut back on the pork to unpatriotic world corporations and excessive military spending, and the needed social programs would have adequate funding and possibly even Clinton's budget surplus could be restored.


And,we could cut back on the pork to politicians and their pet projects,like "bridges to nowhere.

We could also eliminate all of the uneeded social programs,and the fraud at the rest of them.
We could eliminate funding for public TV and NPR.
WE could eliminate or cut back on federal employees.

Just by taking those few steps we could return to the fictional budget surplus under Clinton.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 08:10 am
MM wrote:
We could also eliminate all of the uneeded social programs,and the fraud at the rest of them.
We could eliminate funding for public TV and NPR.


Here's a graph of the Federal Discretionary Spending for 2006.

Let's see; education, employment training and social services-8%
War-57%

NPR and public radio is about $500 million.

The cost of the Iraqi war is $177 million per day.

WOW! Eliminate their $500 million and we can get money for about 3 days of war in Iraq.

$500 million is about 0.02% of the 2006 Federal Budget. I think the reason the Republican Congress wants to eliminate its funds has more to do with ideology then saving money.

http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/discretionaryfy2006.gif

Here's a graph of the total Federal debt from 1940 and projected to 2010.

See how the debt dramatically increased during the Reagan years.

See how it decreased and reversed itself during the Clinton years.

See how it resumed it's dramatic climb during the Bush years.

See how Republicans always accuse the Democrats of taxing and spending.

See how Republicans take pride in their fiscal conservatism and spending responsibility.

See how Republican words and deeds don't match.

Conclusion; you can't believe what Republicans say.

http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/debtchart2006.gif
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jun, 2006 11:24 am
Xingu,

Thank you for posting the pie chart. It is both interesting and informative. What is missing is the comparison of the discretionary budget items to the entitlement portion of the budget. Do you have a graph for that? Actually, I'd love to see the non-discretionary budget broken down in the same manner as the discretionary budget.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 01:34 am
He won't do it since it would look bad for the left wing liberals -Asherman.

In reality, there are several Cabinet Posts which could easily be closed. I think the elimination of several including the monster HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT( 500 Billion a year?) could easily be junked.

Indeed, Martin L. Gross, writing SIX YEARS AGO, in his book-"The Government Racket" indicated that 375 Billion a YEAR is the amount of waste in the federal government.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2006 02:15 am
Asherman wrote:
Thank you for posting the pie chart. It is both interesting and informative.

Do you have a comment on his national debt chart too? In particular, how would you relate it with this earlier statement of yours? "Already, the National Debt is a matter of grave concern as a result of entitlement programs, most of which date from the FDR and LBJ administrations."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 11:59:25