Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > white republicans more likely to vote for a democrat than a black republican?

white republicans more likely to vote for a democrat than a black republican?
Thread Tools
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:34 PM
 
... by 25%! so says this WP article, Whites Take Flight on Election Day.

democrats are more likely to vote for a republican than a black democrat by 38%!



what does this say about our society?
( Last edited by black bear theory; Apr 14, 2006 at 09:57 PM. Reason: redunancy reduced :))
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:43 PM
 
That's a fascinating study. But I've got to ask: White Republicans? Isn't that a bit of a redundancy?
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
That's a fascinating study. But I've got to ask: White Republicans? Isn't that a bit of a redundancy?
No. There is a lot to be said for NOT being taken for granted, as the Democratic party certainly treats blacks. Also, not EVERY black person is ok with handouts and freebies and abortion and immorality.

But thanks for publicly identifying yourself as, well, as what you are.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:33 PM
 
Not surprising. There's little difference between a Democrat and Republican anyways nowadays. Bush is the most liberal Republican I've ever seen.

Though this study doesn't bode well for a Condi Rice vs Hillary Clinton battle for la Presidente
http://hmurchison.blogspot.com/ highly opinionated ramblings free of charge :)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:34 PM
 
Yeah, because the Republican party shows a metric ton of concern for blacks.

Face it: Blacks are taken for granted by both parties because they both assume blacks will vote Democrat.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
No. There is a lot to be said for NOT being taken for granted, as the Democratic party certainly treats blacks. Also, not EVERY black person is ok with handouts and freebies and abortion and immorality.

But thanks for publicly identifying yourself as, well, as what you are.
Haha, come on abe, virtually all Republicans are whites. Around 90%. Whites are also the only ethnic group Republicans win. They win whites 60-40 while losing all other ethnic groups 75-25.

Not sure why you're so defensive about that fact. Do you think there's something wrong with the fact that Republicans are the party of whites?
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:12 AM
 
I would be interesting to see how many black democrats would vote for a black republican. Or how many democrat women who would vote republican if the republicans would put a woman up for the job. Or how many black woman democrats would vote republican if there was a black female republican candidate.

Shall we go on?

Polls are like free advice, worth every penny.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Haha, come on abe, virtually all Republicans are whites. Around 90%. Whites are also the only ethnic group Republicans win. They win whites 60-40 while losing all other ethnic groups 75-25.

Not sure why you're so defensive about that fact. Do you think there's something wrong with the fact that Republicans are the party of whites?
Hispanic republican here. But only because they are the current pro-life party.

Otherwise I run smack dab down the middle of the partisan aisle.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:55 AM
 
Race has nothing to do with any of it and besides, I vote the candidate and not the party.

Likewise, I vote for the candidate and not the race.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Race has nothing to do with any of it and besides, I vote the candidate and not the party.

Likewise, I vote for the candidate and not the race.
2nded. If a democrat claims a pro-life ticket, then I have to do even more research. About 75% of the time I vote democrat in that situation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
If a democrat claims a pro-life ticket
Then ask for a refund?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Haha, come on abe, virtually all Republicans are whites. Around 90%. Whites are also the only ethnic group Republicans win. They win whites 60-40 while losing all other ethnic groups 75-25.
From Wiki:
As of the year 2006, the Republican Party has strong support from business at all levels, including "Main Street" (locally owned business) and "Wall Street" (national corporations). Since the year 1980 a "gender gap" has appeared to make support for the Republican party stronger among men and support for the Democratic party stronger among women. Since 1964 Republicans have been weakly represented among African-Americans, winning under 15% of the Black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2004). However, President George W. Bush made a big push for Hispanic votes winning 35% in 2000 and 44% in 2004. Around 45% of Asian-Americans also supported President Bush and the Republican Party in 2004.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:25 AM
 
2004 Presidential Elections: CNN Exit Poll by Race

White (77%)
Bush 58%
Kerry 41%
Nader 0%
African-American (11%)
Bush 11%
Kerry 88%
Nader 0%
Latino (8%)
Bush 44%
Kerry 53%
Nader 2%
Asian (2%)
Bush 44%
Kerry 56%
Nader* <-
Other (2%)
Bush 40%
Kerry 54%
Nader 2%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:40 AM
 
Yup.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 04:50 AM
 
...As some black voters drift toward the GOP, Republicans have accused the Democratic Party of expedient politics: ignoring a core constituency until it's time to vote, rather than nurturing African-Americans between elections. Some African-American Democrats share that complaint.

''I think there's an extreme danger" of losing black votes to the GOP, said Lamell McMorris, an African-American political consultant who heads the Washington-based Perennial Strategies. Democrats are still relying on their civil rights record and are not pitching new ideas to young, professional blacks seeking to build businesses and personal wealth.

''As time goes on, you're dealing with a generation of individuals who, in their mind, are very far removed from the civil rights movement," said McMorris, who is 32. ''You cannot keep going on this romanticized, ideological civil rights agenda and think you can reach out to African-Americans of my generation.' "

''What the Democrats have not been able to do is to come up with a new vision, a new voice, a new perspective, a way to reach out to younger members of the African-American community," he said. ''In that area, I think the Republicans have done a better job..."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...o_embrace_gop/
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 10:15 AM
 
Yeah, but aren't y'all forgetting a little something?

Like, when Shrillary Clinton claimed "The White House is run like a plantation?"



I told my next door neighbor about that - she's black - and she was disgusted and said, "The Democrats have lost my vote with rhetoric like that."

The Democrats play the race card more than anyone else - including on this site.



     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
2nded. If a democrat claims a pro-life ticket, then I have to do even more research. About 75% of the time I vote democrat in that situation.

Unfortunate. In my opinion, abortion is not a presidential issue. I thought Republicans are for small government with minimal interference?

How things have changed.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by hmurchison2001
Not surprising. There's little difference between a Democrat and Republican anyways nowadays. Bush is the most liberal Republican I've ever seen.

Though this study doesn't bode well for a Condi Rice vs Hillary Clinton battle for la Presidente

How do you figure? Economically - okay... Socially, no way!


I don't think anybody knows what it means to be Republican or Democrat, because things are changing a great deal. The Democrats are having a hard time finding themselves partially because the Republicans are invading on their turf.

This is one of, if not the largest and spendiest governments ever.
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Unfortunate. In my opinion, abortion is not a presidential issue. I thought Republicans are for small government with minimal interference?

How things have changed.
It's unfortunate that you don't respect human life.

I think it is a complete government issue. And since the supreme court decides the issue, and since the president nominates supreme court candidates, then it most certainly is a "presidential issue".

What does "small government and minimal interference" have to do with abortion? I think you're thinking of the libertarians. The fact that republicans simply believe that an unborn child deserves rights means they have my vote.

Nice try besson3c. But your points are very weak as usual.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Race has nothing to do with any of it and besides, I vote the candidate and not the party.

Likewise, I vote for the candidate and not the race.
... as long as the candidate isn't an Arab and the party isn't Democratic.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
It's unfortunate that you don't respect human life.

I think it is a complete government issue. And since the supreme court decides the issue, and since the president nominates supreme court candidates, then it most certainly is a "presidential issue".

What does "small government and minimal interference" have to do with abortion? I think you're thinking of the libertarians. The fact that republicans simply believe that an unborn child deserves rights means they have my vote.

Nice try besson3c. But your points are very weak as usual.

I don't think my points are weak, but I appreciate the dig.

How you or I feel about abortion is irrelevant. By telling the federal government to enact legislation outlawing abortion is setting a precedent that the government should dictate to us what is right for our own bodies.

If there were some national economic ramifications of permitting abortion that would be one thing, but as long as we are talking morality the pro-lifers wanting federal law have no leg to stand on, as far as I'm concerned. It simply isn't an issue for federal government - particularly among the Libertarian wing of the Conservatives (who I'm hoping will develop a spine soon and break with their party, in general).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
It's unfortunate that you don't respect human life.

I think it is a complete government issue. And since the supreme court decides the issue, and since the president nominates supreme court candidates, then it most certainly is a "presidential issue".

What does "small government and minimal interference" have to do with abortion? I think you're thinking of the libertarians. The fact that republicans simply believe that an unborn child deserves rights means they have my vote.

Nice try besson3c. But your points are very weak as usual.

BTW, small government with minimal interference was indeed a part of the Republican platform for years. Things have changed, that is why this government is often referred to as "Neo-cons", rather than Republicans.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Hispanic republican here. But only because they are the current pro-life party.

Otherwise I run smack dab down the middle of the partisan aisle.
It's always surprising to me, but I know quite a few people who are essentially single-issue voters on abortion. I don't think I know anyone who's a single issue-voter on any other issue.

That's helped Republicans quite a bit, even though the majority of people want abortion to stay legal. If Roe were overturned, it would be the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in a generation.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
BTW, small government with minimal interference was indeed a part of the Republican platform for years. Things have changed, that is why this government is often referred to as "Neo-cons", rather than Republicans.
I don't think they've changed at all. It's always been pure marketing.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Yeah, but aren't y'all forgetting a little something?

Like, when Shrillary Clinton claimed "The White House is run like a plantation?"



I told my next door neighbor about that - she's black - and she was disgusted and said, "The Democrats have lost my vote with rhetoric like that."

The Democrats play the race card more than anyone else - including on this site.



America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
How do you figure? Economically - okay... Socially, no way!


I don't think anybody knows what it means to be Republican or Democrat, because things are changing a great deal. The Democrats are having a hard time finding themselves partially because the Republicans are invading on their turf.

This is one of, if not the largest and spendiest governments ever.
Oh, you don't really mean that, do you?

Just think of the big old hairy moosefly that gets in your car as you start driving from frozen Canada to the balmy US of A.

You don't stop driving or open your windows or doors until you reach sunny Florida when he escapes your fuzziness and flies away.

Isn't the moosefly still a moosefly, even though it's no longer in moose land?
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
BTW, small government with minimal interference was indeed a part of the Republican platform for years. Things have changed, that is why this government is often referred to as "Neo-cons", rather than Republicans.
Oh rlly?

Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively opposed to "big government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.

The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition.


BTW when you cut military and defense spending in HALF for YEARS at a time when we need it most. A LOT OF SPENDING will happen when someone that comes back realizing this.

Little good did that balanced budget in the 90s do us. Any moron could have balanced the budget that way.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
BTW, small government with minimal interference was indeed a part of the Republican platform for years. Things have changed, that is why this government is often referred to as "Neo-cons", rather than Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons..._United_States
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
Oh, you don't really mean that, do you?

Just think of the big old hairy moosefly that gets in your car as you start driving from frozen Canada to the balmy US of A.

You don't stop driving or open your windows or doors until you reach sunny Florida when he escapes your fuzziness and flies away.

Isn't the moosefly still a moosefly, even though it's no longer in moose land?

Yeah... Mooseflies!

Okay...


Were you high when you wrote this?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 05:20 PM
 

It's interesting that Neo-cons are apparently "relatively opposed to large government", even though this government has gotten huge (I believe the largest ever, although don't quote me on that).

The rest of this does prove that things have changed though. There has been no government in the past set on "clean installing" various governments as this Wikipedia overview suggests. There have been a few older Republican supporters that have broken with the Neo-cons because they no longer represent them. The Democrats, like the Republicans, must change and reinvent themselves too.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 05:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
It's interesting that Neo-cons are apparently "relatively opposed to large government", even though this government has gotten huge (I believe the largest ever, although don't quote me on that).
Or maybe that makes them NOT neocons?
The rest of this does prove that things have changed though. There has been no government in the past set on "clean installing" various governments as this Wikipedia overview suggests. There have been a few older Republican supporters that have broken with the Neo-cons because they no longer represent them. The Democrats, like the Republicans, must change and reinvent themselves too.
They claim this "neocon" thing has been going on since the 60s and 70s. It's not something new.

Just like the liberal thing.

BTW I read a web page not too long ago by some leftist freak before the whole "neocon" name came out.

He was stressing the importance of using neocon over neo-conservative because using the word CON gave people a negative connotation to go by.

Since simply calling someone a "conservative" isn't very demeaning, it had to be spiced up a bit.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 05:46 PM
 
The way the term seems to be used, it applies more to foreign policy than anything else. And it was always kind of a small, elite group anyway. I doubt there are many average Republican voters who consider themselves neo-cons.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
It's interesting that Neo-cons are apparently "relatively opposed to large government", even though this government has gotten huge (I believe the largest ever, although don't quote me on that).

The rest of this does prove that things have changed though. There has been no government in the past set on "clean installing" various governments as this Wikipedia overview suggests. There have been a few older Republican supporters that have broken with the Neo-cons because they no longer represent them. The Democrats, like the Republicans, must change and reinvent themselves too.


[ TITLE: 11pm, JULY 25th 1967 ]

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Law and order have broken down in Detroit, Michigan. Pillage, looting, murder…

VO: Only a few years before, President Johnson had promised policies that would create a new and a better world in America. He had called it “the Great Society.”

[ TITLE: President LYNDON JOHNSON, 1964 ]

JOHNSON: The Great Society is in place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind. It is a place where the City of Man…

VO: But now, in the wake of some of the worst riots ever seen in America, that dream seemed to have ended in violence and hatred. One prominent liberal journalist called Irving Kristol began to question whether it might actually be the policies themselves that were causing social breakdown.

IRVING KRISTOL: If you had asked any liberal in 1960, we are going to pass these laws, these laws, these laws, and these laws, mentioning all the laws that in fact were passed in the 1960s and ‘70s, would you say crime will go up, drug addiction will go up, illegitimacy will go up, or will they get down? Obviously, everyone would have said, they will get down. And everyone would have been wrong. Now, that’s not something that the liberals have been able to face up to. They’ve had their reforms, and they have led to consequences that they did not expect and they don’t know what to do about.

VO: In the early ‘70s, Irving Kristol became the focus of a group of disaffected intellectuals in Washington. They were determined to understand why the optimistic liberal policies had failed. And they found the answer in the theories of Leo Strauss. Strauss explained that it was the very basis of the liberal idea—the belief in individual freedom—that was causing the chaos, because it undermined the shared moral framework that held society together. Individuals pursued their own selfish interests, and this inevitably led to conflict. As the movement grew, many young students who had studied Strauss’ ideas came to Washington to join this group. Some, like Paul Wolfowitz, had been taught Strauss’ ideas at the University of Chicago, as had Francis Fukuyama. And others, like Irving Kristol’s son William, had studied Strauss’ theories at Harvard. This group became known as the neoconservatives.
http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptP...ghtmares1.html
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 08:53 PM
 
IIRC the Republican party won the Muslim vote. Until the last presidential election.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
IIRC the Republican party won the Muslim vote. Until the last presidential election.
Because Bush was tough on terrorism?
     
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 02:03 AM
 
Actually, Bush got most of the Arab and Muslim vote in the last election.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Actually, Bush got most of the Arab and Muslim vote in the last election.
Everything I've seen shows Bush losing both groups by over 50 points.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Actually, Bush got most of the Arab and Muslim vote in the last election.
The following link disagrees with you. Got something that backs up your claim?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135970,00.html

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 11:04 AM
 
The quote in your sig. is interesting. In this day and age, with worldwide protests over a cartoon depicting the prophet, it's surprising to see a hint of liberalism from the Koran. I must admit, I don't remember reading that part when I spent some time with the Muslim Holy Book some years ago. What I do remember is that it all sounded an awful lot like the Bible, and I suppose it is just like the Bible in that cultures and idealogues will make of it what they will--the text itself is pliable and can be bent to justify any point of view.

Like the abortion issue discussed above. There's nothing in the Bible about it. In fact, masturbation is more clearly denounced in the Old Testament. Someone claimed taking a pro-choice political stand is tantamount to not respecting human life. Yet if you read the Old Testament there's clearly absolutely no respect for human life in those pages. Slaughter abounds. The Christian fixation on abortion has risen in the last century and a half. In the middle ages a distinction was made when it came to developing fetuses--between "formed" and "unformed." Yet now, we have people arguing that conception is the point at which human life becomes a human being.

It's interesting because it all highlights the essential difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" in our modern world. I would reterm this conflict "absolutism" vs. "pluralism" and it covers a wide range of problems not only here in America, but in the world at large. Reframed like that, it's interesting to see that ideologically, the American conservative party is actually on the same side as Al Quaeda. Both are absolutists who believe in the application of force and law to impose their morality on others.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
The quote in your sig. is interesting. In this day and age, with worldwide protests over a cartoon depicting the prophet, it's surprising to see a hint of liberalism from the Koran. I must admit, I don't remember reading that part when I spent some time with the Muslim Holy Book some years ago. What I do remember is that it all sounded an awful lot like the Bible, and I suppose it is just like the Bible in that cultures and idealogues will make of it what they will--the text itself is pliable and can be bent to justify any point of view.
Interpretations of Scripture are open to bastardization. We know this because it's true.

Like the abortion issue discussed above. There's nothing in the Bible about it.
Did you also spend time with the Bible a couple years ago?

Exodus 21:22-23; If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life

Job 31:15; Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?

Psalms 22:9-10; Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb.

Population control does not need man's help.

In fact, masturbation is more clearly denounced in the Old Testament. Someone claimed taking a pro-choice political stand is tantamount to not respecting human life. Yet if you read the Old Testament there's clearly absolutely no respect for human life in those pages. Slaughter abounds. The Christian fixation on abortion has risen in the last century and a half. In the middle ages a distinction was made when it came to developing fetuses--between "formed" and "unformed." Yet now, we have people arguing that conception is the point at which human life becomes a human being.
True, and others argue first and second trimester.

It's interesting because it all highlights the essential difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" in our modern world. I would reterm this conflict "absolutism" vs. "pluralism" and it covers a wide range of problems not only here in America, but in the world at large. Reframed like that, it's interesting to see that ideologically, the American conservative party is actually on the same side as Al Quaeda. Both are absolutists who believe in the application of force and law to impose their morality on others.
These, no doubt would be the same absolutists, predominantly Christian that legalized the act in the first place. The same predominantly Christian nation that would fund such prolific artworks as 'Piss Christ" and others, all in the name of absolutism? You've applied the same lack of logic to your argument as you have your suppositions on what the Bible does and does not say. The American Conservative party is not creating for you an environment of fear from saying the things you say. There are so many differences between the "American conservative party" and al Qaeda, I don't even know where to begin. I'm not entirely sure you're "pluralist" and tolerant enough to hear it.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
These, no doubt would be the same absolutists, predominantly Christian that legalized the act in the first place.
You really think most of the people fighting to ban abortion are the ones who made it legal in the first place?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
You really think most of the people fighting to ban abortion are the ones who made it legal in the first place?
To clarify, I believe most people oppose abortion. The problem is the people who oppose it are divided into two camps; Those who oppose it entirely and those who oppose it in cases other than rape, incest, and health of mother. I believe this weakened the opposition's resolve to the point where the absolutists (those who feel it should be legal in all cases) won the battle of ideals.

i.e. fear of being absolutist giving way to absolutism.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Exodus 21:22-23; If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life

Job 31:15; Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?

Psalms 22:9-10; Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb.
Those are about abortion? Is this some kind of post-modern deconstructionist Biblical interpretation?

I don't understand why people cite that Exodus passage. First, it's not about abortion per se, it's about someone injuring a pregnant woman against her will. A guy beats up a woman, and she miscarries. That's not abortion. But second and more importantly, it shows how unborn babies were not seen as equal to human life - if you force a woman to miscarry, killing the baby, you just pay some money. Only if you kill the woman are you executed. And we're talking about a Book that says you can be executed for things like accidentally touching menstrual fluid or going to church with a cold sore.

So how does that support what pro-lifers today believe, that an unborn baby is a person? It doesn't - it says exactly the opposite.

I want you to tell me something, ebuddy. I suggest to you that you are disobeying God's law if you want to make abortion illegal. It says very clearly in the good book that an unborn baby is worth less than the pregnant woman.

Sinner!
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 04:06 PM
 
The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up.
1 Samuel 2:6 (NIV)

Then God spoke all these words, saying,..."You shall not murder."
Exodus 20:1,13 (NAS)

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;...
Matthew 5:19 (RSV)

...shed not innocent blood...
Jeremiah 7:6 (KJV)

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live....
Deuteronomy 30:19 (KJV)

Listen to me, O islands, and pay attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me.
Isaiah 49:1 (NAS)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.
Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJ)

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, ...
Galations 1:15 (RSV)

Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands; your walls are continually before Me.
Isaiah 49:16 (NAS)

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for giving us through Christ every possible spiritual benefit as citizens of Heaven! For consider what He has done -- before the foundation of the world he chose us to become, in Christ, his holy and blameless children living with his constant care.
Ephesians 1:3-4 (PME)

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

Thus says the Lord:"For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead.
Amos 1:13 (NKJ)

Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.
Matthew 18:14 (NKJ)

Never despise one of these little ones; I tell you, they have their guardian angels in heaven, who look continually on the face of my heavenly Father.
Matthew 18:20 (NEB)

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (NKJ)

Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "He has no hands."? Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this?," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?
Romans 9:20-21 (NAS)

So tremendous, however, were the revelations that God gave me that, in order to prevent me from becoming absurdly conceited, I was given a physical handicap - one of Satan's angels to harass me and effectually stop any conceit. Three times I begged the Lord for it to leave me, but his reply has been, "My grace is enough for you: for where there is weakness, my power is shown the more completely." Therefore, I have cheerfully made up my mind to be proud of my weaknesses, because they mean a deeper experience of the power of Christ.
2 Corinthians 12:7-9 (PME)

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 07:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
Reframed like that, it's interesting to see that ideologically, the American conservative party is actually on the same side as Al Quaeda. Both are absolutists who believe in the application of force and law to impose their morality on others.
I interpret this as a request for someone to show you how Christianity differs from Islam.

Return to this post as I'll bring to it what I think is/are the most important distinctions.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...as#post2881636

"There is definitely an arab bias against jews and there is definitely anti-semitism among arabs. I thought that much is clear." - Taliesin 2/16/06 in PL
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
Samuel P. Huntington

The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.
Whereas the world's secular governments and Christian denominations and millions of individual Christians have been active and pretty successful in containing or negating the effects of violent Christian fundamentalists on a worldwide campaign of domination (Ha! No such thing exists! ), the Muslim governments and sects and followers have not been. That means they are out of control.

Iran leader's messianic end-times mission
Ahmadinejad raises concerns with mystical visions
Posted: January 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's mystical pre-occupation with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah figure – the Mahdi – is raising concerns that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration he envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.

While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been making headlines lately by questioning whether the Holocaust actually happened, by suggesting Israel should be moved to Europe and by demanding the Jewish state be wiped off the face of the earth, his apocalyptic religious zealotry has received less attention.

In a videotaped meeting with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, Ahmadinejad discussed candidly a strange, paranormal experience he had while addressing the United Nations in New York last September.

He recounts how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

Ahmadinejad at the U.N.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, Ahmadinejad wasn't the only one who noticed the unearthly light. One of his aides brought it to his attention.

The Iranian president recalled being told about it by one of his delegation: "When you began with the words ‘in the name of Allah,' I saw a light coming, surrounding you and protecting you to the end."

Ahmadinejad agreed that he sensed the same thing.

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

Ahmadinejad's "vision" at the U.N. is strangely reminiscent and alarmingly similar to statements he has made about his personal role in ushering in the return of the Shiite Muslim messiah.

He sees his main mission, as he recounted in a Nov. 16 speech in Tehran, as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."

According to Shiites, the 12th imam disappeared as a child in the year 941. When he returns, they believe, he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about a final judgment and the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is urging Iranians to prepare for the coming of the Mahdi by turning the country into a mighty and advanced Islamic society and by avoiding the corruption and excesses of the West.

All Iran is buzzing about the Mahdi, the 12th imam and the role Iran and Ahmadinejad are playing in his anticipated return. There's a new messiah hotline. There are news agencies especially devoted to the latest developments.

"People are anxious to know when and how will He rise; what they must do to receive this worldwide salvation," says Ali Lari, a cleric at the Bright Future Institute in Iran's religious center of Qom. "The timing is not clear, but the conditions are more specific," he adds. "There is a saying: 'When the students are ready, the teacher will come.'"

For his part, Ahmadinejad is living up to at least part of his call to the faithful. According to reports, he lives so modestly that declared assets include only a 30-year-old car, an even older house and an empty bank account.

Ahmadinejad and others in Iran are deadly serious about the imminent return of the 12th imam, who will prompt a global battle between good and evil (with striking parallels to biblical accounts of "Armageddon").

An institute set up in 2004 for the study and dissemination of information about the Mahdi now has a staff of 160 and influence in the schools and children's magazines.

In Iran, theologians say endtimes beliefs appeal to one-fifth of the population. And the Jamkaran mosque east of Qom, 60 miles south of Tehran, is where the link between devotees and the Mahdi is closest.

Ahmadinejad's cabinet has given $17 million to Jamkaran.

Shiite writings describe events surrounding the return of the Mahdi in apocalyptic terms. In one scenario, the forces of evil would come from Syria and Iraq and clash with forces of good from Iran. The battle would commence at Kufa – the Iraqi town near the holy city of Najaf.

Even more controversial is Ahmadinejad's repeated invocation of Imam Mahdi, known as "the Savior of Times." According to Shiite tradition, Imam Mahdi will appear on Judgment Day to herald a truly just government.

Missed by some observers in Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. was his call to the "mighty Lord" to hasten the emergence of "the promised one," the one who "will fill this world with justice and peace."

Who stands in the Mahdi's way?

A top priority of Ahmadinejad is "to challenge America, which is trying to impose itself as the final salvation of the human being, and insert its unjust state [in the region]," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society.

Taraghi says the U.S. is "trying to place itself as the new Mahdi." This may mean no peace with Iran, he adds, "unless America changes its hegemonic ... thinking, doesn't use nuclear weapons, [or] impose its will on other nations."
Ahmadinejad personifies the extremist danger of Islam to the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Without any effective controls on the actions which he and others (like OBL who share these same beliefs) call for, what would stop the fundamentalists from defeating the moderate Muslims and then defeating the rest of the world?

The difference between Islam and Christianity is clear.
( Last edited by abe; Apr 16, 2006 at 08:04 PM. )
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Haha, come on abe, virtually all Republicans are whites. Around 90%.
You are aware that blacks are about 13% of the population, right? The Democrats are also a majority white party. A party with a majority of blacks would represent perhaps 15% of the electorate.

Whites are also the only ethnic group Republicans win. They win whites 60-40 while losing all other ethnic groups 75-25.
You are aware that this statement is different that your first, right? "A majority of Republicans is white" is a very different statement from, "A majority of blacks are Democrat." Both statements are true, but they have nothing to do with each other. As illustrated above, the first statement is about population, more than anything.

You appear to be implying that the second statement is proof that Republicans are in general racist. Whether they are or not, your statement doesn't begin to prove it. There are any number of reasons that a majority of blacks might vote Democrat. Before you can claim a specific reason, you need to prove it.

--Poogy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 08:19 PM
 
Why is it that the OP has Republicans in the title when the study doesn't exactly say anything glowing about Democrats too?

I would probably consider myself a Republican, but I've voted for Democrats and for Libertarians. I vote for the best person for the job.

I don't vote based on skin color, although I didn't vote for the Blue Guy.

I do get rather tired of the sanctimoniousness (is that a word) of many Democrats. "We're so inclusive." "Republicans are racist."

Yet, anytime a black person is a Republican, they are called an oreo or a race traitor.

Bill Clinton, the first "black" President (whose personal mentor was a segregationist), had fewer blacks in higher places of power than the current President.

But, let's keep in mind that Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren't REAL black people because they aren't liberals.

All a liberal has to do is say a Republican is a racist and nobody questions it. Yet, which party has a leader in the Senate who was once a high ranking member of the KKK? (Hint, it starts with a D.)

There are racists in BOTH parties. Which really sucks. I thought by now our society would be able to look beyond skin color.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
All a liberal has to do is say a Republican is a racist and nobody questions it. Yet, which party has a leader in the Senate who was once a high ranking member of the KKK? (Hint, it starts with a D.)
It's interesting. Consider Dean's statement, that a Republican convention wouldn't have so many people of color in the room unless they got the hotel staff in. Although he thought he was accusing the Republicans of racism, his own statement was breathtakingly racist. To Dean, "black people" equals "hotel staff"? Sounded that way to me.

It makes me wonder how many blacks Dean is close too, or whether most blacks of his acquaintance are indeed staff. Democrats' scandals concerning under-the-table illegal hispanic nannies comes to mind. I guess I'm just saying that his remark seems to say more about Dean himself than about those he was accusing.

-Poogy
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2006, 11:20 PM
 
There seems to be no real information about the study that came up with these figures. My biggest question is WHO these numbers were generated on. If I knew who the black Republican and white Democrat were in the races that were studied, I might be able to form an opinion from this information. Maybe the Republicans put out a candidate that just didn't have the credentials of his or her Democratic opponent. Maybe there were background problems. Maybe there was a "name problem."

Here in Texas, a "white-sounding" name makes for a much more credible candidate, mostly because there are so many different names on the ballot for so many different offices, it's hard to wade through the more notable offices, let alone the offices lower on the ticket. Many non-white candidates with good, anglo names like Wilson or Smith have been elected because their opponents' names "sounded black" or "sounded Hispanic." This is particularly true (but not exclusively) with Republicans. Democratic candidates here often cash in on the opposite name recognition; if they sound too anglo they don't do as well.

What it comes down to is that without more information on the survey, it's all just numbers. A conclusion depends on how they did the survey and with what elections.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2006, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Poogy
You are aware that blacks are about 13% of the population, right? The Democrats are also a majority white party. A party with a majority of blacks would represent perhaps 15% of the electorate.



You are aware that this statement is different that your first, right? "A majority of Republicans is white" is a very different statement from, "A majority of blacks are Democrat." Both statements are true, but they have nothing to do with each other. As illustrated above, the first statement is about population, more than anything.

You appear to be implying that the second statement is proof that Republicans are in general racist. Whether they are or not, your statement doesn't begin to prove it. There are any number of reasons that a majority of blacks might vote Democrat. Before you can claim a specific reason, you need to prove it.

--Poogy
I'm not sure what to make of your post. Of course I'm aware that I presented two different proportions. You need both to see the full picture - that virtually all Republicans are white (c. 90%), and also that Republicans only win whites (c. 60-40) and resoundingly lose the other ethnic groups put together (c. 75-25). As you pointed out, you need the second set of numbers because whites are a large majority in the US.

But I'm not sure where this racism stuff comes from. Not from me. I never claimed that the reason Republicans lose ethnic minority votes is because they're racist, nor do I think that's true. Look, Republicans also lose women voters - it's not because Republicans are sexist. I believe people basically vote for the platform that they feel best matches their values, and ethnic minorities don't perceive the Republican party as matching their values. Whites do. I'm sure the reasons for that are numerous and complex, and can't be boiled down to simple racism. I'm aware that some liberals may put it in such harsh terms as "Republicans are all racists." I don't think that's true.

On the other hand, Republicans are the party of whites (and males), and denying it, as some people in this thread seem to do, certainly isn't going to help change that. It's not simple dumb racism that non-whites don't vote for Republicans, but it's not random chance either. There are reasons for it.

For example, although Republicans get killed by the black vote, they only lose Hispanics by around 55-45, as f1000 pointed out. But who wants to bet me that US hispanics are going against Republicans in significantly larger numbers - at least 60-40, I'd say - in the 2006 elections, due to this illegal immigration debate. You can't use the kind of rhetoric that's been used by many Republicans and think it isn't going to cost you. It matters.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2