49er Fan Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Fact: Republicans have not won a Presidential election since 1928 without either "Nixon" or "Bush" on the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Your religious beliefs define your moral values. If you say you are Catholic and the Church says that abortion is wrong, then that is what you must believe or don't call yourself a Catholic. I believe your views on Mormonism are not exactly factual. They are a Christian religion. I don't remember Mitt Romney pushing any agenda that contradicted my religious beliefs. Can you say the same for Obama? I'm just curious, does that mean Muslim extremists are not actually Muslim because they interpreted the Koran wrong? Also I missed the part where the Catholic church said it was cool for priests to molest children so that whole religious beliefs defining moral values thing doesn't really fly. I'm guessing Atheists have no moral values then? My morals are not defined by the my religion but they are a part of them, make no mistake. Saying they are what define you as a person is incorrect to me. Edited November 7, 2012 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyguy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I wonder if the percentage of black voters went up during these last two elections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Very funny. Show me that 93% of white voters voted for Romney and I would be happy to agree with you. What equals more? 93% of 1000 or 60% of 100,000? Hmmm...considering the white male vote outnumbered the African American vote by substantial margins similar to that, what do you think had more impact on the election? Again, you hide behind your rational statements using ONLY percentages, because if you looked at the actual NUMBER OF VOTES in comparison, you would see the 60% was a MUCH BIGGER advantage than the 93%, of which 90% of them were already voting democrat to begin with. Edited November 7, 2012 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 <p> i answered this earlier today on ppp but the conservatives didn't like the answer. i'll try again with different wording: much of republican economic policy in the last 2 decades has been aimed at maintaining and even increasing the top heavy distribution of wealth. they have been very successful (and conversely, the dems quite unsuccessful). we have the most concentrated distribution of wealth in this country that has existed in most of our lifetimes. and it gets worse (or better depending on your perspective) every year. it doesn't take an economist to see that the system is set up for this to happen. at least the dems pay lip service to slowing, stopping or reversing it. one salient example is minimum wage. who does a low minimum wage benefit? who does it hurt? who's for and against it politically. answer those questions and you'll have the answer to your bigger question. what an arrogant point of view. it's not that conservatives 'don't like the answer', it's that we disagree with your premise. we understand fully your point of view, and we think you're wrong. we believe in compassion, we don't believe in being hoodwinked. i sat with a friend of mine not two weeks ago, his hot-button issues were catholics and their opposition to the health care mandate, along with the larger question of taxation. not 20 minutes later, he spoke of maneuvering/manipulating his income around to avoid taxation, as if the two discussions were unrelated. every time the president opened his mouth on the issue of taxation and panders to the middle class, i thought of the many tax strategies employed by people like him to beat the system. this president showed his stuff over the past 30-60 days or so. bitter, ugly, angry, petty. so be it, he won, and we have to live with it. if he can come toward the center, maybe he can salvage something reasonable from his second term that the other 57m Americans who wanted him out can look toward. unfortunately, i doubt that he can, and frankly doubt he really cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) i guess im just saying that when the republicans finally emerge from their pending civil war they would be wise to brand themselves to draw more of what is actually natural black conservatism and if they do they could easily regain some of their historic dominance. hopefully that brand will also purge some of the more negative aspects of black conservatism too, but i wouldnt necessarily hold my breath as we have struggled mightily to do that with our white conservatism lately Blacks were overwhelmingly Republicans...until FDR. There were still large numbers of black Republicans into the 1960s. Heck, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. It was LBJ's support of Civil RIghts and the white South's reaction to it (the massive shift from the Democratic to the Republican party and the attendant anti-black agenda that went with it) that finally caused a black stampede into the Democratic Party. BTW, it was the Republican party that was the stauncher supporter of Civil Rights while since the time of the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the one that was home to supporters of Jim Crow. It just goes to show you that a party can change. And the Republicans are going to have to do something similar or go the way of the Whigs. As the old adage has it, "Demographics are destiny." And with a base that is hugely white, male and aging rapidly, its days are clearly numbered unless it changes radically. Edited November 7, 2012 by yungmack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Blacks were overwhelmingly Republicans...until FDR. There will still large numbers of black Republicans into the 1960s. Heck, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. It was LBJ's support of Civil RIghts and the white South's reaction to it (the massive shift from the Democratic to the Republican party and the attendant anti-black agenda that went with it) that finally caused a black stampede into the Democratic Party. BTW, it was the Republican party that was the stauncher supporter of Civil Rights while since the time of the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the one that was home to supporters of Jim Crow. It just goes to show you that a party can change. And the Republicans are going to have to do something similar or go the way of the Whigs. As the old adage has it, "Demographics are destiny." And with a base that is hugely white, male and aging rapidly, its days are clearly numbered unless it changes radically. Honestly, the best thing that could happen would be to see both parites destroyed. Political parties are nothing more than Cartels who run this country in the interests of their parties agendas. Many of the best candidates over the years were not members of these gangs (Rep or Dem) but had no shot because of that. These gangs are archaic and corrupt. Its time to start electing PEOPLE not PARTIES to govern with common sense and with the best interest of the people, not the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwight in philly Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Blacks were overwhelmingly Republicans...until FDR. There will still large numbers of black Republicans into the 1960s. Heck, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. It was LBJ's support of Civil RIghts and the white South's reaction to it (the massive shift from the Democratic to the Republican party and the attendant anti-black agenda that went with it) that finally caused a black stampede into the Democratic Party. BTW, it was the Republican party that was the stauncher supporter of Civil Rights while since the time of the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the one that was home to supporters of Jim Crow. It just goes to show you that a party can change. And the Republicans are going to have to do something similar or go the way of the Whigs. As the old adage has it, "Demographics are destiny." And with a base that is hugely white, male and aging rapidly, its days are clearly numbered unless it changes radically. the dems actually started the KKK.. it was because they wanted blacks and poor whites to come together and rid the republicans from the south.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Obviously you did not watch the RNC because there was a very eloquent black women who was a keynote speaker. There was also a Cuban gentleman that gave a great speech. And I am Catholic as well. How do you separate your politics from your religion? I believe that is very convenient and disingenuous.Your religion is not just going to Church, it is the way you live your life. If Mr. Obama is pro-choice, which he is, and your religion tells you that this approach is morally wrong, how do you justify voting for a leader whose values are different than yours and your Church's and who will push this and other agendas that contradict your religious beliefs? That should be a red flag. That's precisely the genius of the American system, that there is a "public arena" and a private one, also known as Separation of Church and State. You do not have to personally support abortion in order to support the right of others who may not share your religious convictions to have that right. And in no way is that out of harmony with true Catholic teaching. Joe Biden's position is historically correct in regards to Church teaching. Unfortunately, the late Pope John Paul II appointed vast numbers of reactionary bishops who now set the ahistorical agenda of the Church. Not surprisingly, most if not all of them are registered Republicans. It's good to remember that Jesus never said a word for or against abortion, homosexuality or any number of other things that hypnotize so-called contemporary Catholics. He did, however, have an awful lot to say about putting riches over God, about mistreating the poor, about using politics and position for personal gain at the expense of others, and about taking care of the sick, homeless and outcast. When so-called "practicing Catholics" begin putting the priorities Jesus actually had over the made-up ones they've picked up from the Protestant Evangelicals and other odd sects, then maybe they'll regain the respect of others. BTW, it's clear as day in the New Testament that Jesus never married, never seems to have had a romantic relationship with a woman, and spent all his time with at least a dozen other men, "camping out," and otherwise wandering footloose and fancy free. Not saying it was a "gay thing," just pointing out the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 so the part that scares you is what? What scares me is people can go into a voting booth and vote themselves my money. That is no different than a mob of people going into the bank and stealing my savings or breaking into my house and stealing my possessions. This was unConstitutional until 1913 when the 16th Ammendment was passed. This created the Federal Reserve and our regressive, unequal tax sytem which is basically the root of every economic problem this country has faced since. Before 1913 we had a free country where properity create enormous sums of wealth that raised the stardards of living for all citizins. Over the last years 100 years that prosperity has been dying a slow slow death. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." - Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835. Fact: Republicans have not won a Presidential election since 1928 without either "Nixon" or "Bush" on the ticket. Considering the fate of this nation since 1928, I think that is quite the compliment. And BTW - the Democrats were the party of the KKK back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 LMAO, you talk about logic and reason, yet just stomp your feet and say black people voted for Obama because he is black despite EVERY SINGLE FACT AND PIECE OF EVIDENCE PROVES...key word PROVES...the black vote ALWAYS for the last 50 years gone almost ENTIRELY to the Decomcratic vote REGARDLESS of color which has ALWAYS been white until Obama. Yet now those SAME people must have voted for Obama ONLY because he was black despite voting democrat for the last 50 years? Are you even serious? How the hell can you say that with a straight face? The stupidity of that statement is ridiculous. You have exactly ZERO relevant information to even suggest Obama got the vote based on race. Not one relevant fact other than you constantly repeating it was because he was black. Literally you have been bombarded with facts, yet you operate in a world devoid of logic and reason just so you can sit back and ignore them. Please, show me just one piece of information that even remotely suggests he got that high of percentage because he was black. How many of the past democratic candidates were black? ZERO...so why did they vote democrat then? Are you implying all the black vote has been converted to republican since Obama was elected president, but only changed back to Obama because hes black? I mean, come on man, this is just stupid. Your level of ignorance is not even worth addressing anymore. People like you are devoid of logic and just avoid facts like the plague because it OBLITERATES your irrational statement. You just like to profess the same lame blanket statements with no merit as proof you have logic. Incredible...racial ignorance at its best. This :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm just curious, does that mean Muslim extremists are not actually Muslim because they interpreted the Koran wrong? Also I missed the part where the Catholic church said it was cool for priests to molest children so that whole religious beliefs defining moral values thing doesn't really fly. I'm guessing Atheists have no moral values then? My morals are not defined by the my religion but they are a part of them, make no mistake. Saying they are what define you as a person is incorrect to me. Let me take this point by point. First of all, no religion teaches that sin is okay. So Muslim extremists or terrorists are not very good Muslims because they are not practicing what their religion teaches. And Priests that have molested children similarly can not be considered to be very good Catholics because they have not adhered to the teachings of the Catholic church. And each religion teaches moral values. So if you are trying to be a practicing Catholic or a practicing Muslim or a practicing anything, then you PRACTICE what your religion teaches. I have no idea what atheists use as a moral compass, but I would be willing to bet that those with moral values, practice those values. And Atheism is not a religion by the way. So hence my contention that if the church teaches that abortion is wrong and you do not believe in this, then why call yourself a Catholic? Just call yourself something else that says that abortion is okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) This :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Let me take this point by point. First of all, no religion teaches that sin is okay. So Muslim extremists or terrorists are not very good Muslims because they are not practicing what their religion teaches. And Priests that have molested children similarly can not be considered to be very good Catholics because they have not adhered to the teachings of the Catholic church. And each religion teaches moral values. So if you are trying to be a practicing Catholic or a practicing Muslim or a practicing anything, then you PRACTICE what your religion teaches. I have no idea what atheists use as a moral compass, but I would be willing to bet that those with moral values, practice those values. And Atheism is not a religion by the way. So hence my contention that if the church teaches that abortion is wrong and you do not believe in this, then why call yourself a Catholic? Just call yourself something else that says that abortion is okay. So if I am pro-choice I'm not a catholic but if Priests molest children they aren't "very good" catholics? Ok then. Technically that doesn't make you catholic either considering "only the lord has the right to judge" so you're not following what the church practices. Edited November 7, 2012 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) actually both sides are correct about the black folks voted for obama cuz hes black meme a lot of blacks absolutely did vote for barry cuz they perceive him as black. the bigger actual issue is why since if he was any other half ethnicity but white we would have a problem with ignoring an entire fifty pcent but since its white we see no issue. so obamas half native indian and we just decide to ignore that. oh no racist. ok so hes half eskimo and we ignore that half oh no racist. ok then hes half white and we ignore that half i see no problem here. hmmm weird but blacks certainly have voted a ton for white candidates, as if they had much choice until a too green obama showed up but still they get credit for their non-black candidate voting too again the real issue is not the fact that both sides are right on this particular topic (black voting patterns), but really why we ignore the huge half white elephant just cuz its white when if it was any other race we would see the elephant plain as freakin day. weird Edited November 7, 2012 by Meathead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 what an arrogant point of view. it's not that conservatives 'don't like the answer', it's that we disagree with your premise. we understand fully your point of view, and we think you're wrong. we believe in compassion, we don't believe in being hoodwinked. i sat with a friend of mine not two weeks ago, his hot-button issues were catholics and their opposition to the health care mandate, along with the larger question of taxation. not 20 minutes later, he spoke of maneuvering/manipulating his income around to avoid taxation, as if the two discussions were unrelated. every time the president opened his mouth on the issue of taxation and panders to the middle class, i thought of the many tax strategies employed by people like him to beat the system. this president showed his stuff over the past 30-60 days or so. bitter, ugly, angry, petty. so be it, he won, and we have to live with it. if he can come toward the center, maybe he can salvage something reasonable from his second term that the other 57m Americans who wanted him out can look toward. unfortunately, i doubt that he can, and frankly doubt he really cares. the point isn't whether conservatives agree or disagree with my premise. it's whether minority voters do. that was the question being addressed here. you haven't refuted my argument regarding that in any way. and what does the anecdote about your hypocritical friend add to the argument? do you mean to imply that everyone who wants to change the tax system into a truly progressive system is a hypocrite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 I think it is time to move this thread to PPP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So if I am pro-choice I'm not a catholic but if Priests molest children they aren't "very good" catholics? Ok then. Technically that doesn't make you catholic either considering "only the lord has the right to judge" so you're not following what the church practices. Not judging anyone, just stating my opinion. Not making any value judgements. Maybe I didn't make myself clear about the Priest thing. What they did is a sin. It goes against what the Church teaches. So does abortion. You can call yourself whatever you want and I am not judging you, I just don't understand why you would want to call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in the Church's teachings. Doesn't make much sense to me, but you are entitled to call yourself whatever you want and that is your right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Let's see if we can keep this thread going till the next election in 4 years. Anyone that wants this respond with a, hell yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) ^^ HELL YES Not judging anyone, just stating my opinion. Not making any value judgements. Maybe I didn't make myself clear about the Priest thing. What they did is a sin. It goes against what the Church teaches. So does abortion. You can call yourself whatever you want and I am not judging you, I just don't understand why you would want to call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in the Church's teachings. Doesn't make much sense to me, but you are entitled to call yourself whatever you want and that is your right. Sorry, had to get that in there. It's not that I don't believe in the church's teachings. It is a teaching that was more or less created due to the advancements in medicine. Thou shall not kill could have easily been interpreted in anyway before abortion was created (Killing humans, animals, insects, etc). It's the churches interpretation of the bible that defines sin or not (other than what is already predefined as sin). But I'm honestly tired of arguing so I'll just leave it at that. Nice arguing with you today. Edited November 7, 2012 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsoldier54 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 That's precisely the genius of the American system, that there is a "public arena" and a private one, also known as Separation of Church and State. You do not have to personally support abortion in order to support the right of others who may not share your religious convictions to have that right. And in no way is that out of harmony with true Catholic teaching. Joe Biden's position is historically correct in regards to Church teaching. Unfortunately, the late Pope John Paul II appointed vast numbers of reactionary bishops who now set the ahistorical agenda of the Church. Not surprisingly, most if not all of them are registered Republicans. It's good to remember that Jesus never said a word for or against abortion, homosexuality or any number of other things that hypnotize so-called contemporary Catholics. He did, however, have an awful lot to say about putting riches over God, about mistreating the poor, about using politics and position for personal gain at the expense of others, and about taking care of the sick, homeless and outcast. When so-called "practicing Catholics" begin putting the priorities Jesus actually had over the made-up ones they've picked up from the Protestant Evangelicals and other odd sects, then maybe they'll regain the respect of others. BTW, it's clear as day in the New Testament that Jesus never married, never seems to have had a romantic relationship with a woman, and spent all his time with at least a dozen other men, "camping out," and otherwise wandering footloose and fancy free. Not saying it was a "gay thing," just pointing out the facts. So Jesus was gay. Brilliant. What I was talking about has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State, which by the way has been wildly misinterpreted. The original intent was that the Federal Government should not endorse any single religion and force it upon it's citizens. It was never intended that freedom of religion could not be expressed at public facilities. That is political correctness gone astray. Singing Christmas carols in school or praying in school in no way equates to the Federal government stating that Christianity is the only religion and anyone who violates that principle will be prosecuted. What I was saying is that if you consider yourself to be a Catholic and the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong, then you either agree with that or you don't. If you don't, then maybe you should find a religion that endorses abortion. And if that is your belief, then by all means, vote for a candidate that shares that sentiment. But if you are a practicing Catholic, meaning that you actually practice what your religion teaches, then vote accordingly and not for someone that will push an agenda that is contrary to your religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flutie Flakes Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Honestly, the best thing that could happen would be to see both parites destroyed. Political parties are nothing more than Cartels who run this country in the interests of their parties agendas. Many of the best candidates over the years were not members of these gangs (Rep or Dem) but had no shot because of that. These gangs are archaic and corrupt. Its time to start electing PEOPLE not PARTIES to govern with common sense and with the best interest of the people, not the party. To expand on this Alpha, I want people that want to govern for all the right reasons. Institute strict term limits, no lifetime healthcare or other cushy perks (members of legislative, judicial and executive branches all get same healthcare that are military members receive - which by the way is less than satisfactory having visited several VA Hospitals). After they leave office, they lose their health care and any other benefits, just like military members that leave active duty service. Most importantly, ban all lobbying activities as BOTH political parties are at the behest of lobbyists and this form of corruption is found at ALL levels of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts