PDA

View Full Version : "Evangelical Christians...that's why we lost"


htismaqe
11-04-2004, 09:53 AM
I heard a Democratic strategist this morning say this VERY thing.

Are they really that stupid?

James Dobson and Pat Robertson didn't swing this election. The vast majority of the American mainstream isn't THAT religious.

When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

HC_Chief
11-04-2004, 09:54 AM
They still have no clue.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 09:55 AM
His statement is true on its face, but worthless in terms of providing insight and analysis into what happened, or how the Democrats will do better next time around.

Soupnazi
11-04-2004, 09:56 AM
A different excuse for the last 3 thrashings they've gotten. I hope they never figure it out.

Keep Terry McAuliffe on at the DNC!!!!

Donger
11-04-2004, 09:59 AM
They still have no clue.

And they won't. Look at the arrogance displayed by certain folks on this very BB.

If you don't agree with them, you are an idiot, living in fear, a sheep, et al. While I disagree with most all aspects of liberalism, I do not think that those who do are morons. They just believe differently than I.

Part of me feels sorry for them.

mlyonsd
11-04-2004, 10:00 AM
Jon Stewart last night had a funny observation. He said you probably voted for Kerry if you owned a boat. (People living on the coasts)

Of course it isn't that simple but it is obvious the DNC leaders don't have clue on what the middle part of the country thinks is important.

At least most of the people I know vote on the person and thier convictions. We can spot being flim-flammed a mile away.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:07 AM
And they won't. Look at the arrogance displayed by certain folks on this very BB.

If you don't agree with them, you are an idiot, living in fear, a sheep, et al...

Yep and as long as they keep that attitude up, they'll never win again.

HC_Chief
11-04-2004, 10:11 AM
Should be interesting to see what direction they take. Are they going to realize that a momentum shift away from the loonies, towards a centrist platform is the the way to go, or are they going to further embrace the lunatic fringe... opting to merely spread the psychosis?

I sincerely hope it's the former. A healthy multi-party system is better for this country than an all-powerful singular party. It tends to keep the nutjobs at bay.

Radar Chief
11-04-2004, 10:12 AM
And they won't. Look at the arrogance displayed by certain folks on this very BB.

If you don't agree with them, you are an idiot, living in fear, a sheep, et al. While I disagree with most all aspects of liberalism, I do not think that those who do are morons. They just believe differently than I.

Part of me feels sorry for them.

Exactly, completely agree. Except for that last sentence. ;)

Velvet_Jones
11-04-2004, 10:15 AM
I heard a Democratic strategist this morning say this VERY thing.

Are they really that stupid?

James Dobson and Pat Robertson didn't swing this election. The vast majority of the American mainstream isn't THAT religious.

When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.
"When I'm in a corner and it is apparent that its no one else's fault I normally blame it on GOD. It relieves my responsibility and makes more sense." Velvet Jones - 1974

These people are freaking out. They remind me of my 4 year old. Blame someone else at all cost. I usually just make her go to her room. Think it would work for these idiots?

Velvet

Mr. Kotter
11-04-2004, 10:18 AM
...When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

THAT is the problem of the Democratic party, no doubt about it. It's why I voted for Bush and Thune, but voted DEMOCRAT at the state and local level here in SD.

The REPs need to be careful here too, and heed the lesson. Giving Evangelicals a place at the table, a voice....is fine, is GREAT! However, if Evengelicals begin to dictate the agenda, and the Republican party gravitates toward THAT extreme.....then the REPs will be in trouble during the next election.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 10:19 AM
I doubt it was just the "Evangelical Christians" that swung it, but perhaps, if they are responsible for swinging this and other elections, the Dems should consider their views and put a canidate up there that will support some of their views instead of someone that is openly agaisnt just about all of their stances.

The problem I see with the Democrats is they keep wanting extremist in there that will try to push the country to the far left. They need to consider what the Country is trying to tell them and put up a moderate, main-stream canidate that opposes the far left extremes of his party. For example, find a canidate that isn't extreme on abortions (they don't even have to be anti-abortion, just not extreme left on the issue) and a democrat canidate that doesn't have a record of speaking against (or voting against) gun control and you will split 2 of the larger groups that tend to go republican - Christians and the NRA.

Chief Henry
11-04-2004, 10:21 AM
Keep Terry McAuliffe on at the DNC!!!!



I can i get an AMEN


;)

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 10:28 AM
I heard a Democratic strategist this morning say this VERY thing.

Are they really that stupid?

James Dobson and Pat Robertson didn't swing this election. The vast majority of the American mainstream isn't THAT religious.

When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

Uh, the exit polls indicate the increased numbers of evangelicals swung the election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Cochise
11-04-2004, 10:32 AM
I love that it's been how many years now, and they still haven't figured out that that "values" thing is important to people.

They wonder why evangelicals don't like them. Could it be because Democrats are constantly making fun of them?

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 10:33 AM
I heard a Democratic strategist this morning say this VERY thing.

Actually, there may be something to this.

Supposedly(according to Christian radio), approx. 4 million registered Christians did not vote in 2000. If my church was any indication, churches across the country lit a fire under this bloc's collective rear end to register and vote for their Biblical beliefs and moral standards.

I have no doubt that many of those 4 mil heeded the call... I was one of them.

Z

Donger
11-04-2004, 10:35 AM
Uh, the exit polls indicate the increased numbers of evangelicals swung the election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Uh, there's no data under the WHITE EVANGELICAL/BORN-AGAIN? question.

Amnorix
11-04-2004, 10:37 AM
And they won't. Look at the arrogance displayed by certain folks on this very BB.

If you don't agree with them, you are an idiot, living in fear, a sheep, et al. While I disagree with most all aspects of liberalism, I do not think that those who do are morons. They just believe differently than I.

Part of me feels sorry for them.

The inverse is also true.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 10:38 AM
Actually, there may be something to this.

Supposedly(according to Christian radio), approx. 4 million registered Christians did not vote in 2000. If my church was any indication, churches across the country lit a fire under this bloc's collective rear end to register and vote for their Biblical beliefs and moral standards.

I have no doubt that many of those 4 mil heeded the call... I was one of them.

Z

I'm sure the Catholic registries given to the WH also helped.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 10:40 AM
Supposedly(according to Christian radio), approx. 4 million registered Christians did not vote in 2000. If my church was any indication, churches across the country lit a fire under this bloc's collective rear end

Saw and heard the same things around here.

It's really quite remarkable. The libs threw everything they had at this one and it still wasn't enough. Now hopefully those 4 million people keep coming to the polls in the future, too.

Donger
11-04-2004, 10:40 AM
The inverse is also true.

Not for me.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 10:40 AM
Jon Stewart last night had a funny observation. He said you probably voted for Kerry if you owned a boat. (People living on the coasts)

Of course it isn't that simple but it is obvious the DNC leaders don't have clue on what the middle part of the country thinks is important.

At least most of the people I know vote on the person and thier convictions. We can spot being flim-flammed a mile away.

I also saw a poll that said you were more likely to vote DUHbya if you lived near a Walmart, Kerry if you lived near Starbucks. :hmmm:

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 10:41 AM
I love that it's been how many years now, and they still haven't figured out that that "values" thing is important to people.

They wonder why evangelicals don't like them. Could it be because Democrats are constantly making fun of them?



DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 10:41 AM
Not for me.

me either.

mlyonsd
11-04-2004, 10:42 AM
Uh, the exit polls indicate the increased numbers of evangelicals swung the election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Sounds like a mandate for putting prayer back in schools. :Poke:

Cochise
11-04-2004, 10:42 AM
I also saw a poll that said you were more likely to vote DUHbya if you lived near a Walmart, Kerry if you lived near Starbucks. :hmmm:

Wow, that sure is some great information.

You are full of useful tidbits today. Or are those useful tidbits, of Raiders

mlyonsd
11-04-2004, 10:44 AM
I also saw a poll that said you were more likely to vote DUHbya if you lived near a Walmart, Kerry if you lived near Starbucks. :hmmm:

Makes sense. Only stupid people would pay that much for a cup of Jo.

KC Jones
11-04-2004, 10:45 AM
Technically they are correct saying that evangelicals swung this election.

Of course, you could pick about any group that turned out roughly 4-5 million more for Bush this year than in 2000.

ZepSinger
11-04-2004, 10:54 AM
Makes sense. Only stupid people would pay that much for a cup of Jo.

ROFL

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 10:55 AM
Uh, the exit polls indicate the increased numbers of evangelicals swung the election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Uh, the exit polls indicate that people voted more based on MORAL CONVICTION than before.

These WERE NOT "evangelicals". These were normal, everyday people who are fed up with extreme activism from the far left.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 10:58 AM
It sounds to me like Democrats don't know the difference between

1) moral and religious beliefs (regardless of whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or other) that help form the basis of normal people's lives

2) "evangelical" Christianity

Of course, that's not surprising for a party of "causes". They identify more easily with demagogues.

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 10:59 AM
I heard a Democratic strategist this morning say this VERY thing.

Are they really that stupid?

James Dobson and Pat Robertson didn't swing this election. The vast majority of the American mainstream isn't THAT religious.

When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

They turned up for His Daddy in 88....they elected his son in 2000....why is this some big shock to to people?

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:07 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=103347

Having watched the election all freakin' night, I have come to the same conclusion that the pundits did: This election was decided by the gay marriage issue.

Exactly. That's my point.

People actually turned out to vote against the gay marriage issue.

And it wasn't just "evangelical Christians".

They need to figure out that the majority of mainstream America, and especially minority America (Hispanics and African Americans) lean to the RIGHT of center when it comes to morality.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:08 AM
They turned up for His Daddy in 88....they elected his son in 2000....why is this some big shock to to people?

Absolutely CLUELESS.

Anybody that considers moral issues while voting is an "evangelical Christian" right?

Duck Dog
11-04-2004, 11:11 AM
I've been watching CNN. (I don't get Fox news) And they have been showing the voting demographics and painting the the born again/evangelical voters as the only majority that voted for Bush.

I know very few people who go to church every Sunday. I know fewer people who are Bush backers that go to church at all.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:13 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=103347



Exactly. That's my point.

People actually turned out to vote against the gay marriage issue.

And it wasn't just "evangelical Christians".

They need to figure out that the majority of mainstream America, and especially minority America (Hispanics and African Americans) lean to the RIGHT of center when it comes to morality.

Ah, but the gay issue is what motivated those Evangelicals. I mean if you need anymore proof then look at the states that had the issue on their ballot.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:14 AM
Uh, the exit polls indicate that people voted more based on MORAL CONVICTION than before.

These WERE NOT "evangelicals". These were normal, everyday people who are fed up with extreme activism from the far left.


I'm sorry. I saw the stats and the evangelicals are CLAIMING victory because of their efforts...

I'll find you some links.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:16 AM
Ah, but the gay issue is what motivated those Evangelicals. I mean if you need anymore proof then look at the states that had the issue on their ballot.

Keep marginalizing it, you'll NEVER win another election in this country.

It's that simple.

The "gay issue" among other moral issues motivated FAR MORE PEOPLE than just the Evangelicals.

It's convenient to lump morally-minded voters into a category. It makes it easier to swallow.

It doesn't change the fact that my co-worker sitting next to me is a Hindu, NOT an evangelical, and he voted for Bush because of "moral" issues.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:19 AM
I'm sorry. I saw the stats and the evangelicals are CLAIMING victory because of their efforts...

I'll find you some links.

The Evangelicals can "claim" victory all they want. It doesn't mean they're correct.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 11:19 AM
Denise, If the Evangelicals carry such a strong voice, and canidates are supposed to represent the views of the majority of the people while serving in office, why won't the Democrats realize that they need to put a canidate on the ballot that will represent those views instead of attack them?

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 11:21 AM
The Evangelicals can "claim" victory all they want. It doesn't mean they're correct.



I do agree with this one. The NRA probably responsible for just as many votes in the Bush column as Evangelicals. Didn't matter how many guns Kerry held up, his voting record in Congress showed his true stance and they weren't voting for him.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:21 AM
Denise, If the Evangelicals carry such a strong voice, and canidates are supposed to represent the views of the majority of the people while serving in office, why won't the Democrats realize that they need to put a canidate on the ballot that will represent those views instead of attack them?

Because Christians are "intolerant".

It's funny. John Kerry actually asked some Baptist voters (who happened to be black) to "cast aside" their religious convictions and vote for him based on the economy, the war, and the health care issues.

How uncharacteristically arrogant for someone whose party is about "tolerance".

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:22 AM
Keep marginalizing it, you'll NEVER win another election in this country.

It's that simple.

The "gay issue" among other moral issues motivated FAR MORE PEOPLE than just the Evangelicals.

It's convenient to lump morally-minded voters into a category. It makes it easier to swallow.

It doesn't change the fact that my co-worker sitting next to me is a Hindu, NOT an evangelical, and he voted for Bush because of "moral" issues.


'Pundits have said the evangelical vote delivered the state to Bush. Twenty-five percent of Ohio voters were evangelical and 76 percent of people in that group voted for Bush, according to the CNN exit poll.'

http://www.app.com/app/story/0,21625,1101382,00.html


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15579_1.html

Why Bush Won
Moral values, anti-gay marriage initatives, and more black support united a new coalition of religious voters.

By David Domke



George W. Bush has won re-election as President exactly as his campaign planned — on the strength of his appeal among religious conservatives. The surprise twist in this outcome, though, is that Bush’s success drew upon a diverse coalition of religious voters. Three voting trends provide particular insight into the election outcome, and also are suggestive of where the administration and U.S. politics are headed.

First, "moral values" — which is code language for voter opposition to gay marriage and abortion — was the top concern among presidential voters (named by 22%, higher even than terrorism or the economy), according to national exit polling data. This is a remarkable finding, given that moral values barely registered as a campaign concern in national polls over the past several months. Clearly, religious conservatives turned out to vote in large numbers.

Second, anti-gay marriage initiatives on ballots in 11 states all passed with sizeable majorities (Oregon’s 57-43 margin was the closest). This undoubtedly worked to the advantage of Bush — most importantly in Ohio, where support for an initiative banning gay marriage came in at roughly 62% overall and at 86% among white voters self-identifying as evangelical or as "born-again."

Third, Bush’s support among African Americans was much higher in several key states Tuesday than in 2000. Exit polls indicate that Bush received 16% of votes by Ohio blacks (up from 9% four years ago) and 13% of votes by Florida blacks (up from 7% four years ago). Polls consistently show African Americans to be more religiously inclined than the rest of the population, and CBS’ Ed Bradley speculated Tuesday night that Bush’s opposition to abortion and gay marriage resonated among blacks. Indeed, 61% of African Americans in Ohio supported an initiative banning same-sex marriages.

Lastly, exit polls also indicate that Bush’s support rose from 2000 among Catholics (up 5% to 52%) and Jewish Americans (up 6% to 25%). Put simply, people of religious faith gravitated toward Bush, or at least away from his Democratic Party opponent, in greater numbers than in 2000.

The merger of politics and conservative faith present in this administration culminates more than three decades of political engagement by U.S. religious conservatives. Ronald Reagan was the first president to be embraced by the Religious Right, but Bush’s resonance with these voters — and the Republican Party’s corresponding alignment with them — is unprecedented. Indeed, under Bush the Republican Party has picked up seats in the Senate and House of Representatives in 2002 and Tuesday night, strengthening conservatives’ power. The Religious Right is now the ascendant political force in this nation.

In this context, several legislative and judicial developments become plausible. The likelihood of new appointments by Bush to the Supreme Court will provide an opportunity for the Roe v. Wade ruling to be revisited. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, with its clear electoral power, almost certainly becomes a central pillar in the Republican agenda. Stem cell research will remain in limbo, allowed but not encouraged.

In foreign policy, the president already consistently evinces a certainty that God’s will corresponds with administration policies. Consider this claim by Bush in the third presidential debate: "I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That’s what I believe. And that’s one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can’t tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march." The implication is clear: The administration’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the president has consistently asserted that "freedom is on the march," are divine wishes.

Such rhetoric is attractive to the religious voters who support Bush and the Republican Party. These individuals have the potential to be a new political coalition in the United States. If this is so, then at least we might hope that Bush and others who seek to fuse faith and policy would recall the words of St. Augustine of Hippo to a student: "I wouldn’t have you prepare for yourself any way of grasping and holding the truth other than the one prepared by him who, as God, saw how faltering were our steps. That way is, first, humility; second, humility; third, humility; and as often as you ask, I’ll tell you, humility."

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:27 AM
Ah, but the gay issue is what motivated those Evangelicals. I mean if you need anymore proof then look at the states that had the issue on their ballot.


You mean like Oregon?

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:28 AM
deleted in the interest of brevity

Thank you for proving my point.

It's precisely why the Democrats, in their current incarnation, will not be able to win another national election.

Caring about moral and religion DOES NOT equal "evangelical". It doesn't even mean Christian.

Chief Henry
11-04-2004, 11:28 AM
DUHknees is biggoted towards the beleavers in
Jesus Christ. No shocker hear folks...

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:29 AM
Thank you for proving my point.

It's precisely why the Democrats, in their current incarnation, will not be able to win another national election.

Caring about moral and religion DOES NOT equal "evangelical". It doesn't even mean Christian.

Read what I wrote under the gay marriage thread. I am in the middle on this issue thus I see how both sides tooled/were tooled by the gays during this election and how it played out.

Duck Dog
11-04-2004, 11:30 AM
Exit polls? ROFL

Why is anyone quoting exit polls still? They have been proven to be unreliable.

I don't know anyone who voted for Bush that is religious. It's rediculous to think the bible thumpers were the only reason Bush was elected.

Face it. People from all walks of life do not like liberals. That's why skerry lost and Bush won.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:30 AM
Thank you for proving my point.

It's precisely why the Democrats, in their current incarnation, will not be able to win another national election.

Caring about moral and religion DOES NOT equal "evangelical". It doesn't even mean Christian.


I care about morals and religion as well...the RWNJs have hijacked these issues like they did patriotism in that if you don't believe as they do that equates to a LACK of having a belief in such. :rolleyes:

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 11:31 AM
Absolutely CLUELESS.

Anybody that considers moral issues while voting is an "evangelical Christian" right?

Because of the shear numbers of evangelicals....Bush doesn't have to pander to other smaller groups. In the past two elections evangelicals have made up a huge majority of those that vote. This has been common knowledge for about 4 years now. Again...I don't understand why people are so shocked by it. The socialists knew this and that's why at my hippie Phish concerts this summer they had people walking the lot trying to get people to register....but the undisciplined young didn't show up. Probably had their minds wrapped around a bong.

What did you mean by clueless? And no....not everyone that considers moral issues while voting is an evangelical.

Duck Dog
11-04-2004, 11:31 AM
DUHknees is biggoted towards the beleavers in
Jesus Christ. No shocker hear folks...


Yes she is. You can also add white males to that list.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:31 AM
You mean like Oregon?

Were they not the exception?

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 11:31 AM
Exit polls? ROFL

Why is anyone quoting exit polls still? They have been proven to be unreliable.

I don't know anyone who voted for Bush that is religious. It's rediculous to think the bible thumpers were the only reason Bush was elected.

Face it. People from all walks of life do not like liberals. That's why skerry lost and Bush won.
When I get exit polled...I lie.

Duck Dog
11-04-2004, 11:33 AM
I care about morals and religion as well...the RWNJs have hijacked these issues like they did patriotism in that if you don't believe as they do that equates to a LACK of having a belief in such. :rolleyes:


It's true. if you don't think like right wing, gun toting crazy f^ckers like me, you are not patriotic. ROFL

Duck Dog
11-04-2004, 11:34 AM
When I get exit polled...I lie.


Exactly, look what happened to Zogby in N Carolina.

Exit polls are worthless and mean nothing. Islamistmomma using them to make a point, which hasn't been made yet, is funny as hell to watch.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 11:35 AM
Because of the shear numbers of evangelicals....Bush doesn't have to pander to other smaller groups. In the past two elections evangelicals have made up a huge majority of those that vote. This has been common knowledge for about 4 years now. Again...I don't understand why people are so shocked by it. The socialists knew this and that's why at my hippie Phish concerts this summer they had people walking the lot trying to get people to register....but the undisciplined young didn't show up. Probably had their minds wrapped around a bong.

What did you mean by clueless? And no....not everyone that considers moral issues while voting is an evangelical.

Anybody that calls themselves a Christian, is by your definition an "evangelical", correct?

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 11:37 AM
11 states had a measure for banning Gay Marriage. 39 states did not. Voter turn out was way up in ALL states - not just the 11. Interestingly enough, Gay Marriage didn't swing Michigan or Oregon President Bush's way. In the 9 other states that it was an issue, President Bush would have won most of those states without it being on the ballot. Also, I wasn't really worried about that one in OK because of the results from previouis public elections on this issue and figured it would pass handily - which it did.

Perhaps the Dems are just looking for excuses instead of realizing they are not in touch with voters.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:37 AM
We they not the exception?



Exception to what? Eleven states had the issue on the ballot, all eleven states said the same damn thing. I do believe that gays are not allowed to be married in Californa either which is on the same west coast, so to me I see no exception here.

And to top it off, Oregon went Kerry. Now if the gay marriage issue brought out all of the evangelicals, how did Bush not win Oregon?

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 11:37 AM
Anybody that calls themselves a Christian, is by your definition an "evangelical", correct?

In reality...that's up to the individual...but it is a way that the mainstream has label most christians. Hence their(mainstream media) use of the language.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 11:42 AM
And to top it off, Oregon went Kerry. Now if the gay marriage issue brought out all of the evangelicals, how did Bush not win Oregon?


Don't forget Michigan.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:45 AM
Exception to what? Eleven states had the issue on the ballot, all eleven states said the same damn thing. I do believe that gays are not allowed to be married in Californa either which is on the same west coast, so to me I see no exception here.

And to top it off, Oregon went Kerry. Now if the gay marriage issue brought out all of the evangelicals, how did Bush not win Oregon?


Oregon is not South, Mid-west or Bible belt. They are Northwest and tend to be more liberal.

Taco John
11-04-2004, 11:46 AM
I definitely think it was the evangelical vote that made the difference. I'm suprised anyone would argue otherwise... They'd be arguing against Bush's bedrock strategy. Someone like Guliani, who has a checkered past (morally speaking) would have never got out the evangelical vote like that...

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:46 AM
Don't forget Michigan.


Good call. I had forgotten that Michigan was one of the eleven.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:47 AM
Exception to what? Eleven states had the issue on the ballot, all eleven states said the same damn thing. I do believe that gays are not allowed to be married in Californa either which is on the same west coast, so to me I see no exception here.

And to top it off, Oregon went Kerry. Now if the gay marriage issue brought out all of the evangelicals, how did Bush not win Oregon?

Who said it brought out ALL of the evangelicals???

I believe it impacted the election in that it was a factor in Ohio and that was the deciding factor in the election. Not to mention that the Cons had the 'Redeem the Vote' going while the Libs were doing 'Rock the Vote' and the mainstream media didn't pay attention.

I don't know if they can claim they were THE deciding factor but they were a BIG deciding factor...

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:48 AM
I definitely think it was the evangelical vote that made the difference. I'm suprised anyone would argue otherwise... They'd be arguing against Bush's bedrock strategy. Someone like Guliani, who has a checkered past (morally speaking) would have never got out the evangelical vote like that...


Because they want to have it both ways... :rolleyes:

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:48 AM
Oregon is not South, Mid-west or Bible belt. They are Northwest and tend to be more liberal.


You completely ignored my Californa point. The San Fran mayor got in to trouble for ignoring the law and allowing gays to be married in his city.

Now, given that, it would seem that Oregon is is not an exception because of their location.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:50 AM
Anybody that calls themselves a Christian, is by your definition an "evangelical", correct?

Nope. Not at all. I know many regular Christian church goers who are not evangelicals...actually fear them. But people who are evangelical take great pride in that designation and as such would not lie about it to a pollster.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Who said it brought out ALL of the evangelicals???

I believe it impacted the election in that it was a factor in Ohio and that was the deciding factor in the election. Not to mention that the Cons had the 'Redeem the Vote' going while the Libs were doing 'Rock the Vote' and the mainstream media didn't pay attention.

I don't know if they can claim they were THE deciding factor but they were a BIG deciding factor...


Do you have any intention of answering my question, or should I just quit now?

Why did Oregon, and Michigan, go for Kerry if the evangelicals showed up to vote against gay marriage?

Donger
11-04-2004, 11:52 AM
Nope. Not at all. I know many regular Christian church goers who are not evangelicals...actually fear them. But people who are evangelical take great pride in that designation and as such would not lie about it to a pollster.

Again, the CNN link you provided gives no data for the evangelical vote.

So, what are you basing it on?

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:54 AM
http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=ArDemocrat/2004/09/25/11/Img/Pc0110400.jpg

http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ArDemocrat/2004/09/25&ID=Ar00103


Publication:Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Date:Saturday, September 25, 2004 ; Section:Front Section; Page:1


Vote GOP or risk ban on Bible, flier warns

BY MICHAEL R. WICKLINE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

A Republican National Committee mailing to Arkansans says the Bible could be banned and gay marriage allowed if liberals win in the coming election.

Liberals seek to impose their agenda through "activist judges" who circumvent the Constitution, the material says. The "liberal agenda," it says, includes same-sex marriages, partial-birth abortions, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent. The material shows a Bible emblazoned with the word "BANNED." It also shows one man kneeling as he slips a ring onto another man’s finger under the word "ALLOWED."

"This will be Arkansas ... if you don’t vote," says the mailing, enclosing a voter-registration form and urging recipients to "vote Republican!"

Democrats vehemently condemned it.

It’s "the most disgusting, scummiest thing I have ever seen in American politics," said state Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver of North Little Rock.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s Arkansas campaign director Rodney Shelton of Little Rock called it "the bottom of the bottom."

President Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, "is responsible" for the material, Shelton said, because the Republican National Committee and the presidential campaign work together.

The Republican National Committee and the Arkansas Leadership Committee, which helps GOP candidates in Arkansas, said the material raises legitimate issues.

Republican National Committee spokesman Lindsay Taylor said the material was sent a few weeks ago. It went to people in Arkansas and West Virginia, she said.

"I would imagine there are a lot of folks who feel strongly that activist judges shouldn’t be legislating from the bench," she said.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages, people in other states realized that they could be compelled to recognize them, Taylor said.

"Activist judges have sought to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance," she said.

Shelton said it shows that "Republicans are strangling and grabbing at that last bit."

It "proves this bunch is so afraid of the real issues of the economy and the war," Oliver said.

Taylor declined to say why it was sent only to voters in two states.

She said she didn’t know how many were sent.

There is some evidence that it may be having some effect.

Janet Miller, who works for Secretary of State Charlie Daniels, said the office has received more than 1,000 voterregistration applications as a result of this and another Republican National Committee mailings in the past few weeks, which is about 15 percent of the applications that the office received in this period.

Arkansas has about 1.6 million registered voters.

Democratic officeholders also condemned the mailing.

"President Bush needs to not only disavow this, but he needs to get his party under control," said U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, DArk., who made his Christian faith a part of his election campaign two years ago. "This is just absurd."

U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., whose wife, Betsy, is pastor of Quapaw Quarter United Methodist Church in Little Rock, called it a "condescending, insulting message."

Snyder’s re-election bid is challenged by GOP nominee Marvin Parks of Greenbrier, who has repeatedly said Snyder doesn’t represent Arkansas values. Parks declined to comment about the mailing.

Gov. Mike Huckabee is chairman of the Bush campaign in Arkansas. A Huckabee spokesman referred questions about the mailing to Brandy Cox, a spokesman for the Bush campaign in Arkansas. She declined to respond to Shelton’s remarks, referring questions to Taylor, who didn’t return a telephone message left by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to discuss the matter with her further.

Clint Reed also of Greenbrier is executive director of the Arkansas Leadership Committee, which is identified in the mailing as a project of the Faulkner County Republican Committee.

Reed said the mailing is an effort to mobilize Christian conservatives.

He, too, said he didn’t know how many were sent.

"There is no question if John Kerry is elected president he is going to appoint activist judges," Reed said.

He said these appointments by the U.S. senator from Massachusetts and a decorated Vietnam War veteran will "strip away the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance" and "allow the hideous procedure of partial-birth abortion to continue" and "allow same-sex marriages to be prevalent in our society."

"I am willing to bet 75 to 80 percent [of Arkansans] do not agree with activist judges legislating same-sex marriage from any judicial bench," Reed said.

Of Reed’s allegations, Shelton replied, "That just is not true.

"Is [Reed] a fortuneteller, [and] he can predict the future?" Shelton asked.

"John Kerry and [running mate] John Edwards are strong men of faith, and they are not trying to strike God from anywhere," Shelton said. "They embrace their faith and Christianity."

Larry Page, executive director of the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, said the language of the mailing sounded "over the top."

"I don’t know what the basis is for them saying the Bible is going to be banned if the results in this election aren’t as they want," Page said.

No political party has a lock on religion or faith, he said.

"I refuse to let faith be used that way, as more of a political ploy or tool," Page said. "It’s too simple to say, ‘We’re the God party, and they aren’t.’ It demeans the whole process."

Jerry Cox of Little Rock, president of the Arkansas Family Council and a leader in a push for Arkansas to adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he’s puzzled about the mailing’s language.

"While I agree we have activist judges, and I agree that there are people who would like to purge religion from all of public life, I am a little bit surprised at the alarming language," he said.

But, Cox said, "It is a free country. Groups are able to say whatever they feel is appropriate."

Fears have been expressed in some conservative religious circles that a day may come when preaching against homosexuality from the Bible will be made a crime. A minister in Sweden was jailed this year for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful. Others have pointed out that Sweden does not have the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects speech.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 11:55 AM
Do you have any intention of answering my question, or should I just quit now?

Why did Oregon, and Michigan, go for Kerry if the evangelicals showed up to vote against gay marriage?

They were out numbered.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:56 AM
http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=ArDemocrat/2004/09/25/11/Img/Pc0110400.jpg

http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=ArDemocrat/2004/09/25&ID=Ar00103


Publication:Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Date:Saturday, September 25, 2004 ; Section:Front Section; Page:1


Vote GOP or risk ban on Bible, flier warns

BY MICHAEL R. WICKLINE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

A Republican National Committee mailing to Arkansans says the Bible could be banned and gay marriage allowed if liberals win in the coming election.

Liberals seek to impose their agenda through "activist judges" who circumvent the Constitution, the material says. The "liberal agenda," it says, includes same-sex marriages, partial-birth abortions, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent. The material shows a Bible emblazoned with the word "BANNED." It also shows one man kneeling as he slips a ring onto another man’s finger under the word "ALLOWED."

"This will be Arkansas ... if you don’t vote," says the mailing, enclosing a voter-registration form and urging recipients to "vote Republican!"

Democrats vehemently condemned it.

It’s "the most disgusting, scummiest thing I have ever seen in American politics," said state Democratic Party Chairman Ron Oliver of North Little Rock.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s Arkansas campaign director Rodney Shelton of Little Rock called it "the bottom of the bottom."

President Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, "is responsible" for the material, Shelton said, because the Republican National Committee and the presidential campaign work together.

The Republican National Committee and the Arkansas Leadership Committee, which helps GOP candidates in Arkansas, said the material raises legitimate issues.

Republican National Committee spokesman Lindsay Taylor said the material was sent a few weeks ago. It went to people in Arkansas and West Virginia, she said.

"I would imagine there are a lot of folks who feel strongly that activist judges shouldn’t be legislating from the bench," she said.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages, people in other states realized that they could be compelled to recognize them, Taylor said.

"Activist judges have sought to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance," she said.

Shelton said it shows that "Republicans are strangling and grabbing at that last bit."

It "proves this bunch is so afraid of the real issues of the economy and the war," Oliver said.

Taylor declined to say why it was sent only to voters in two states.

She said she didn’t know how many were sent.

There is some evidence that it may be having some effect.

Janet Miller, who works for Secretary of State Charlie Daniels, said the office has received more than 1,000 voterregistration applications as a result of this and another Republican National Committee mailings in the past few weeks, which is about 15 percent of the applications that the office received in this period.

Arkansas has about 1.6 million registered voters.

Democratic officeholders also condemned the mailing.

"President Bush needs to not only disavow this, but he needs to get his party under control," said U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, DArk., who made his Christian faith a part of his election campaign two years ago. "This is just absurd."

U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., whose wife, Betsy, is pastor of Quapaw Quarter United Methodist Church in Little Rock, called it a "condescending, insulting message."

Snyder’s re-election bid is challenged by GOP nominee Marvin Parks of Greenbrier, who has repeatedly said Snyder doesn’t represent Arkansas values. Parks declined to comment about the mailing.

Gov. Mike Huckabee is chairman of the Bush campaign in Arkansas. A Huckabee spokesman referred questions about the mailing to Brandy Cox, a spokesman for the Bush campaign in Arkansas. She declined to respond to Shelton’s remarks, referring questions to Taylor, who didn’t return a telephone message left by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to discuss the matter with her further.

Clint Reed also of Greenbrier is executive director of the Arkansas Leadership Committee, which is identified in the mailing as a project of the Faulkner County Republican Committee.

Reed said the mailing is an effort to mobilize Christian conservatives.

He, too, said he didn’t know how many were sent.

"There is no question if John Kerry is elected president he is going to appoint activist judges," Reed said.

He said these appointments by the U.S. senator from Massachusetts and a decorated Vietnam War veteran will "strip away the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance" and "allow the hideous procedure of partial-birth abortion to continue" and "allow same-sex marriages to be prevalent in our society."

"I am willing to bet 75 to 80 percent [of Arkansans] do not agree with activist judges legislating same-sex marriage from any judicial bench," Reed said.

Of Reed’s allegations, Shelton replied, "That just is not true.

"Is [Reed] a fortuneteller, [and] he can predict the future?" Shelton asked.

"John Kerry and [running mate] John Edwards are strong men of faith, and they are not trying to strike God from anywhere," Shelton said. "They embrace their faith and Christianity."

Larry Page, executive director of the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, said the language of the mailing sounded "over the top."

"I don’t know what the basis is for them saying the Bible is going to be banned if the results in this election aren’t as they want," Page said.

No political party has a lock on religion or faith, he said.

"I refuse to let faith be used that way, as more of a political ploy or tool," Page said. "It’s too simple to say, ‘We’re the God party, and they aren’t.’ It demeans the whole process."

Jerry Cox of Little Rock, president of the Arkansas Family Council and a leader in a push for Arkansas to adopt a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, said he’s puzzled about the mailing’s language.

"While I agree we have activist judges, and I agree that there are people who would like to purge religion from all of public life, I am a little bit surprised at the alarming language," he said.

But, Cox said, "It is a free country. Groups are able to say whatever they feel is appropriate."

Fears have been expressed in some conservative religious circles that a day may come when preaching against homosexuality from the Bible will be made a crime. A minister in Sweden was jailed this year for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful. Others have pointed out that Sweden does not have the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects speech.



Aaaaand, this relates to the topic how?

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 11:59 AM
They were out numbered.


Yet gay marriage was soundly defeated, now why is that? Could it be that even the democrats in the west coast state of Oregon have something in common with the people of Oklahoma in regards to this issue? Totally negating your argument that Oregon was the exception?

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 12:01 PM
Here's a rundown of the 11 states with the marriage ban on the ballot and the vote % difference in canidates for president...

Arkansas - Bush ( 9%)
Georgia - Bush (ahead by 17%)
Kentucky - Bush (ahead by 20%)
Michigan - Kerry (ahead by 3%)
Mississippi - Bush (ahead by 20%)
Montana - Bush (ahead by 20%)
North Dakota - Bush (ahead by 26%)
Ohio - Bush (ahead by 2%)
Oklahoma - Bush (ahead by 32%)
Oregon - Kerry (ahead by 4%)
Utah - Bush (ahead by 44%)



Of the 4 states even close enough to be decided by voters turning out for the marriage ban issue, the canidates split the states. (And Arkansas at 9% Bush was enough of a lead that had the marriage ban not been on the ballot, Bush probably would have won it anyway).

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:04 PM
Yet gay marriage was soundly defeated, now why is that? Could it be that even the democrats in the west coast state of Oregon have something in common with the people of Oklahoma in regards to this issue? Totally negating your argument that Oregon was the exception?


Answer me this...

which side would have worked to get the issue on the ballot in the first place? And in those states was turnout higher than in previous years?

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 12:09 PM
Answer me this...

which side would have worked to get the issue on the ballot in the first place? And in those states was turnout higher than in previous years?


Instead facing reality you choose to respond with a question of your own.


Denial, Denise be thy name.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:11 PM
Instead facing reality you choose to respond with a question of your own.


Denial, Denise be thy name.

I don't know what reality you are wanting me to face. Nearly every corner of the political spectrum is agreeing that the Cons and Rove did a remarkable job in getting out the Evangelical vote and that it likely made a BIG difference if not THE difference in the election.

Certainly it did in Ohio and with that state going the other way the election goes the other way...

so what exactly do you want me to admit or agree to? It seems you are the one trying to suggest that DUHbya has some sort of Conservative Christian/Evangelical mandate when it comes to policy but want to deny it exists when it came to swinging the election. ROFL

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 12:13 PM
In 2000 Bush got somewhere aruond 80 % of all evangelical votes. He's been talking to them since 88. They help elect his dad...and they elected him this week...and they elected him four years ago. No longer did Bush have to worry about the female nor black demographic. This was first demonstrated in 1988 and it was a shock in 2000.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:14 PM
In 2000 Bush got somewhere aruond 80 % of all evangelical votes. He's been talking to them since 88. They help elect his dad...and they elected him this week...and they elected him four years ago. No longer did Bush have to worry about the female nor black demographic. This was first demonstrated in 1988 and it was a shock in 2000.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

that sounds like it might be an insult or a lie. :rolleyes:

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 12:20 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

that sounds like it might be an insult or a lie. :rolleyes:

It's the truth...saw a report on it a year ago on CNN...it was about 30 minutes in length.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:23 PM
It's the truth...saw a report on it a year ago on CNN...it was about 30 minutes in length.


I know. And since you are not a liberal or a liberal radio host your point MIGHT be taken... :hmmm:

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 12:26 PM
I know. And since you are not a liberal or a liberal radio host your point MIGHT be taken... :hmmm:

Well...it might not be the truth...but what they reported none the less. Just passing it on..

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 12:38 PM
I don't know what reality you are wanting me to face. Nearly every corner of the political spectrum is agreeing that the Cons and Rove did a remarkable job in getting out the Evangelical vote and that it likely made a BIG difference if not THE difference in the election.

Certainly it did in Ohio and with that state going the other way the election goes the other way...

so what exactly do you want me to admit or agree to? It seems you are the one trying to suggest that DUHbya has some sort of Conservative Christian/Evangelical mandate when it comes to policy but want to deny it exists when it came to swinging the election. ROFL


That Oregon was not the exception, that gay marriage is a fringe issue even out side of evangelical circles, that the country as a whole has a stronger moral base on such issues, even in liberal west coast states.

No where have I suggested that the religious right did not play a crucial part in W's re-election. All I am saying is that they are not the only factor. There is no way that they add up to even 80% of the people who thought that moral issues were one of the two biggest issues in this race. There are a lot of non-religious people who were turned off by what happened earlier this year in Mass. and San Fran.

The religious right does not own the market on the moral issues.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 12:53 PM
In reality...that's up to the individual...but it is a way that the mainstream has label most christians. Hence their(mainstream media) use of the language.

Whoa...what did you just say? Did you say it was a "label"?

Are you saying that Hispanics are "evangelicals"? Are you saying that Arab-Americans and Indian-Americans, who are largely Muslim or Hindu, are evangelicals?

Because a great many of them are concerned about morality and voted for Bush.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:54 PM
Whoa...what did you just say? Did you say it was a "label"?

Are you saying that Hispanics are "evangelicals"? Are you saying that Arab-Americans and Indian-Americans, who are largely Muslim or Hindu, are evangelicals?

Because a great many of them are concerned about morality and voted for Bush.


http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0034394.cfm

Send a Letter to the Editor on Marriage Victories


Our letter-writing wizard makes it easy for you to spread the word about the 11 states that passed marriage protection-amendments Tuesday night.

Traditional marriage was a big winner in each of the 11 states with marriage-protection amendments on the ballot Tuesday.

The strength of those victories is something your neighbors need to know about — and the best way to make sure they know is to send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

We've made it easy for you to do that by putting together a series of points you can use to make a compelling argument. Here's how it works:

1) Look over the four sections below. From each section, select one paragraph and copy it into a text document; feel free to modify the sections in your own words — and be sure to add the name of your state in an appropriate place if your state was one of the 11 that passed an amendment on Tuesday. No matter which paragraphs you choose, the result will be a finished letter of no more than 200 words.

2) Print and sign your letter, making sure you include your name, full address and phone number. You can then mail it to your local newspaper. For contact information for your local newspaper, visit the Media section of CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the "Local Media" box.

3) You can e-mail your letter through the CitizenLink Action Center, via the link you will find on the contact information page for your local newspaper. If you do this, however, you must make sure you add your full address and phone number to the bottom of the letter — through the "Message" box itself, not just in the "Your Information" fields.

Here, then, are the sections from which you can assemble your letter.

Opening paragraph

The election results are in — and Americans overwhelmingly want marriage to be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Traditional marriage was a big winner across the country on Election Day — earning impressive support at the ballot box.

What do Americans think of marriage? The answer was pretty clear Nov. 2, with voters in several states deciding by huge margins to preserve in their state constitutions the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Weddings are a cause for celebration — and so are the election results from states where voters were asked whether the traditional definition of marriage should be protected.

Second paragraph

Eleven states in all had marriage-protection amendments on their ballots -- and the measures passed in all of them. More than that, they were approved in most cases by supermajorities — as they were in a handful of other states in recent years — proof that Congress did not heed the will of its constituents in voting down the Federal Marriage Amendment this summer.

Eleven states approved marriage-preservation amendments — every one that had one on the ballot. Voters in those states demonstrated their understanding not only of the last two millennia of history, but also of social science data that clearly indicates the value of the traditional family to children and society.

Voters in 11 states affirmed what most Americans know intrinsically to be true: The only rational way to regard marriage is the way it has been regarded for thousands of years. This now makes 17 states since 2000 that have rejected the attempts of gay activists to alter one of the most important, enduring institutions of civilization.

All of the 11 states with constitutional amendments on marriage passed them — by upwards of 60 or 70 percent of the vote in most cases. Hopefully, that sends a message to our senators and representatives in Washington that we want, and expect, them to similarly protect this sacred institution in the U.S. Constitution.

Third paragraph

In a democracy like ours, these election results should be enough to ensure that the people will get what they want. That is unlikely to be the case, though, given the arrogance of many state courts — at least one of which is certain to overstep its constitutional authority and strike down one of these amendments.

Whether any of these amendments will really protect marriage, of course, is anybody's guess. That's because activist judges will now have a crack at them -- and as Louisiana found out after passing a similar amendment earlier this fall, there are no limits to some courts' ability to overreach when looking to foist a politically correct agenda on the rest of us.

But the time for cheering may be short-lived. Now it's the judicial branch's turn to weigh in — and it will hardly be surprising if some liberal state judge somewhere turns over every rock in his way en route to declaring one of the amendments "discriminatory."

Sadly, though, the ballot box is no match for the judge's gavel in modern-day America. Don't be surprised if the next headline you read about this issue involves a state court ruling one of the amendments unconstitutional — usurping the power rightly delegated to the people.

Concluding paragraph

That's why the only real remedy to efforts to render marriage meaningless is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sole sure-fire way of stripping judicial tyrants of their ability to do this is to amend the federal Constitution through the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This is the very definition of "oligarchy" — and the reason why a federal marriage amendment is necessary.

The only weapon to effectively battle such tyranny is another amendment — to the U.S. Constitution.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 12:55 PM
That Oregon was not the exception, that gay marriage is a fringe issue even out side of evangelical circles, that the country as a whole has a stronger moral base on such issues, even in liberal west coast states.

No where have I suggested that the religious right did not play a crucial part in W's re-election. All I am saying is that they are not the only factor. There is no way that they add up to even 80% of the people who thought that moral issues were one of the two biggest issues in this race. There are a lot of non-religious people who were turned off by what happened earlier this year in Mass. and San Fran.

The religious right does not own the market on the moral issues.

But, but, but...these "evangelicals" are a radical FRINGE element. Mainstream America is worried about the fact that Bush lied about the war in Iraq...

:rolleyes:

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 12:57 PM
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0034394.cfm

Send a Letter to the Editor on Marriage Victories


Our letter-writing wizard makes it easy for you to spread the word about the 11 states that passed marriage protection-amendments Tuesday night.

Traditional marriage was a big winner in each of the 11 states with marriage-protection amendments on the ballot Tuesday.

The strength of those victories is something your neighbors need to know about — and the best way to make sure they know is to send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

We've made it easy for you to do that by putting together a series of points you can use to make a compelling argument. Here's how it works:

1) Look over the four sections below. From each section, select one paragraph and copy it into a text document; feel free to modify the sections in your own words — and be sure to add the name of your state in an appropriate place if your state was one of the 11 that passed an amendment on Tuesday. No matter which paragraphs you choose, the result will be a finished letter of no more than 200 words.

2) Print and sign your letter, making sure you include your name, full address and phone number. You can then mail it to your local newspaper. For contact information for your local newspaper, visit the Media section of CitizenLink Action Center and type your ZIP code into the "Local Media" box.

3) You can e-mail your letter through the CitizenLink Action Center, via the link you will find on the contact information page for your local newspaper. If you do this, however, you must make sure you add your full address and phone number to the bottom of the letter — through the "Message" box itself, not just in the "Your Information" fields.

Here, then, are the sections from which you can assemble your letter.

Opening paragraph

The election results are in — and Americans overwhelmingly want marriage to be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Traditional marriage was a big winner across the country on Election Day — earning impressive support at the ballot box.

What do Americans think of marriage? The answer was pretty clear Nov. 2, with voters in several states deciding by huge margins to preserve in their state constitutions the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Weddings are a cause for celebration — and so are the election results from states where voters were asked whether the traditional definition of marriage should be protected.

Second paragraph

Eleven states in all had marriage-protection amendments on their ballots -- and the measures passed in all of them. More than that, they were approved in most cases by supermajorities — as they were in a handful of other states in recent years — proof that Congress did not heed the will of its constituents in voting down the Federal Marriage Amendment this summer.

Eleven states approved marriage-preservation amendments — every one that had one on the ballot. Voters in those states demonstrated their understanding not only of the last two millennia of history, but also of social science data that clearly indicates the value of the traditional family to children and society.

Voters in 11 states affirmed what most Americans know intrinsically to be true: The only rational way to regard marriage is the way it has been regarded for thousands of years. This now makes 17 states since 2000 that have rejected the attempts of gay activists to alter one of the most important, enduring institutions of civilization.

All of the 11 states with constitutional amendments on marriage passed them — by upwards of 60 or 70 percent of the vote in most cases. Hopefully, that sends a message to our senators and representatives in Washington that we want, and expect, them to similarly protect this sacred institution in the U.S. Constitution.

Third paragraph

In a democracy like ours, these election results should be enough to ensure that the people will get what they want. That is unlikely to be the case, though, given the arrogance of many state courts — at least one of which is certain to overstep its constitutional authority and strike down one of these amendments.

Whether any of these amendments will really protect marriage, of course, is anybody's guess. That's because activist judges will now have a crack at them -- and as Louisiana found out after passing a similar amendment earlier this fall, there are no limits to some courts' ability to overreach when looking to foist a politically correct agenda on the rest of us.

But the time for cheering may be short-lived. Now it's the judicial branch's turn to weigh in — and it will hardly be surprising if some liberal state judge somewhere turns over every rock in his way en route to declaring one of the amendments "discriminatory."

Sadly, though, the ballot box is no match for the judge's gavel in modern-day America. Don't be surprised if the next headline you read about this issue involves a state court ruling one of the amendments unconstitutional — usurping the power rightly delegated to the people.

Concluding paragraph

That's why the only real remedy to efforts to render marriage meaningless is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The sole sure-fire way of stripping judicial tyrants of their ability to do this is to amend the federal Constitution through the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This is the very definition of "oligarchy" — and the reason why a federal marriage amendment is necessary.

The only weapon to effectively battle such tyranny is another amendment — to the U.S. Constitution.

Way to paste 3 pages of bullshit that proves absolutely nothing.

You're well on your way to becoming completely irrelevant. And your party is on it's way to joining you.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 12:57 PM
Whoa...what did you just say? Did you say it was a "label"?

Are you saying that Hispanics are "evangelicals"? Are you saying that Arab-Americans and Indian-Americans, who are largely Muslim or Hindu, are evangelicals?

Because a great many of them are concerned about morality and voted for Bush.


No, they might be fundamentalists but that does not make them 'Evangelicals'. MOF, if they are Jewish, Arab, Muslim, or Hindu then they can't be based on the literal meaning of 'evangelical.'

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 01:01 PM
No, they might be fundamentalists but that does not make them 'Evangelicals'. MOF, if they are Jewish, Arab, Muslim, or Hindu then they can't be based on the literal meaning of 'evangelical.'

What's your religion meme, you posted a god thread today.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 01:05 PM
No, they might be fundamentalists but that does not make them 'Evangelicals'. MOF, if they are Jewish, Arab, Muslim, or Hindu then they can't be based on the literal meaning of 'evangelical.'

Yet, the VERY stats you posted earlier showed a sharp increase in Jewish votes for Bush.

The same exit poll data saw a large majority of Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu voters voting for "marriage" amendments.

Thanks for proving my point.

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 01:11 PM
Whoa...what did you just say? Did you say it was a "label"?

Are you saying that Hispanics are "evangelicals"? Are you saying that Arab-Americans and Indian-Americans, who are largely Muslim or Hindu, are evangelicals?

Because a great many of them are concerned about morality and voted for Bush.

Any noun used to identify a group of people is a label.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 01:14 PM
Yet, the VERY stats you posted earlier showed a sharp increase in Jewish votes for Bush.

The same exit poll data saw a large majority of Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu voters voting for "marriage" amendments.

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, I'm not saying ONLY Evangelicals voted for the amendments but they and Fundamentalists would likely comprise a large number, if not a majority, of the vote.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 01:16 PM
Way to paste 3 pages of bullshit that proves absolutely nothing.

You're well on your way to becoming completely irrelevant. And your party is on it's way to joining you.

It's not irrelevent...it's your freaking post that NAMES JAMES DOBSON. ROFL ROFL ROFL



In addition, it's further proof of what the 'gay marriage' issue did to motivate Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to go to the polls. They are now being instructed to write letters to editors proclaiming their part in the victory. :doh!:

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 01:19 PM
Still won't tell us what her faith is, she must be very proud of it.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 01:42 PM
It's not irrelevent...it's your freaking post that NAMES JAMES DOBSON. ROFL ROFL ROFL



In addition, it's further proof of what the 'gay marriage' issue did to motivate Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to go to the polls. They are now being instructed to write letters to editors proclaiming their part in the victory. :doh!:

You just don't get it. I mentioned James Dobson because it's people like him that the Democrats think lost them the election.

It's alright if you want to focus on the Christian fundamentalists...

In the meantime, you and your irrelevant party will continue to lose elections because you're completely out-of-touch with the majority of Americans.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 01:48 PM
But, but, but...these "evangelicals" are a radical FRINGE element. Mainstream America is worried about the fact that Bush lied about the war in Iraq...

:rolleyes:


Gee, Parker, you must have stolen her response to me, because she still has not replied.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 01:51 PM
You just don't get it. I mentioned James Dobson because it's people like him that the Democrats think lost them the election.

It's alright if you want to focus on the Christian fundamentalists...

In the meantime, you and your irrelevant party will continue to lose elections because you're completely out-of-touch with the majority of Americans.


And I provided you many different forms of evidence that could be used to substantiate such a claim. Whether you want to ignore or disavow it is your choice....

but to pretend it doesn't exist or was a non-factor is delusional.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 01:54 PM
And I provided you many different forms of evidence that could be used to substantiate such a claim. Whether you want to ignore or disavow it is your choice....

but to pretend it doesn't exist or was a non-factor is delusional.

The evidence you provided is from Evangelical Christians CLAIMING that they were responsible. It substantiates NOTHING.

I never said it was a non-factor. You just can't accept that what I'm saying is true.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 02:07 PM
Gee, Parker, you must have stolen her response to me, because she still has not replied.

Ah, but they have an interest in what happens in Iraq and Israel...thus any lil white lies might just go un-noticed. And, if you are in denial about a fact or pretending it doesn't exist does that make you a liar or just delusional. See the poll which indicates % of DUHbya supporters believe in 9/11 and SH.

Apostolic Congress

http://www.apostoliccongress.com/

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 02:09 PM
The evidence you provided is from Evangelical Christians CLAIMING that they were responsible. It substantiates NOTHING.

I never said it was a non-factor. You just can't accept that what I'm saying is true.

Oh, ok. Karl Rove is taking credit, Evangelicals are patting themselves on the back, the exit polls indicate the numbers back up their assertions, and the WH is claiming a 'mandate' in part based on the numbers of people who turned out to vote based on RWNJ issues...

and yet, you say that substantiates nothing. Ok.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 02:11 PM
Ah, but they have an interest in what happens in Iraq and Israel...thus any lil white lies might just go un-noticed. And, if you are in denial about a fact or pretending it doesn't exist does that make you a liar or just delusional. See the poll which indicates % of DUHbya supporters believe in 9/11 and SH.

Apostolic Congress

http://www.apostoliccongress.com/


:spock: Did you respond to the correct poster? Because I have no idea what in the hell this has to do with what I wanted you to come to terms with.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 02:11 PM
Like I said, chalk it up to "evangelicals".

Have fun losing in 2008.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 02:13 PM
Like I said, chalk it up to "evangelicals".

Have fun losing in 2008.


Don't forget 2006. I'm looking forward to not having to concern ourselves with a filibuster.

Joshua's Gen
11-04-2004, 02:18 PM
What's your religion meme, you posted a god thread today.

Curious about that, too.

*evangelical signing in.

STFU

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 02:20 PM
Curious about that, too.

*evangelical signing in.

STFU

You're an evangelical? Well, welcome brother!

I mean, I don't go to church...but I believe in the Christian God, so I am too!

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 02:25 PM
Like I said, chalk it up to "evangelicals".

Have fun losing in 2008.


Here is another set of numbers that back up the notion that Evangelicals were a big difference. Notice the numbers of people who voted for Bush that would support a civil union or no legal recognition of the relationship. :hmmm:


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546_1.html

ChiefsCountry
11-04-2004, 02:45 PM
I think its funny liberals always have somebody else to blame for their lost and not themselves. Also I think most Christians were tired of the crap morally that went along with the Clinton years. Which another thing, you know the economy is not tied to the present president but the one before it.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 02:56 PM
I think its funny liberals always have somebody else to blame for their lost and not themselves. Also I think most Christians were tired of the crap morally that went along with the Clinton years. Which another thing, you know the economy is not tied to the present president but the one before it.

Oh, I'm not 'blaming' them for Kerry's loss. I'm congratulating their get out to vote efforts and pointing out that Rove had a plan and followed it.

It almost didn't work. They ALMOST focused on Kerry's Vietnam record, and his flip-flops, and his liberal agenda...

but in the end they decided to focus on THEIR base and try to re-energize them not with an anti-Kerry message but with a fear based 'anti-family, anti-God, anti-Guns' message and the base ate it up.

The Dems could learn a thing or two about fear and motivating their base using it...

I imagine that is what we'll see much of next term and depending on what happens with how far Right DUHbya goes (either willingly or kicking and screaming) there will be more moderates willing to listen because they don't want to go there either.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 03:11 PM
Here is another set of numbers that back up the notion that Evangelicals were a big difference. Notice the numbers of people who voted for Bush that would support a civil union or no legal recognition of the relationship. :hmmm:


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546_1.html

Thanks again for proving my point.

Notice the "percentage of electorate" that would support no legal recognition of the relationship...

Now notice the "percentage of electorate" that goes to church more than one time in a week...

Also note the "percentage of electorate" that indicated no religious affiliation whatsoever.

It's time for you and your party to face facts. This isn't some kind of evangelical, right-wing, Christian zealot backlash.

Mainstream America cares about religion and cares about morals. Period.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:22 PM
And they won't. Look at the arrogance displayed by certain folks on this very BB.

If you don't agree with them, you are an idiot, living in fear, a sheep, et al. While I disagree with most all aspects of liberalism, I do not think that those who do are morons. They just believe differently than I.

Part of me feels sorry for them.
That is exactly how Jettio explains it.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 03:23 PM
It's time for you and your party to face facts. This isn't some kind of evangelical, right-wing, Christian zealot backlash.

Mainstream America cares about religion and cares about morals. Period.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:24 PM
THAT is the problem of the Democratic party, no doubt about it. It's why I voted for Bush and Thune, but voted DEMOCRAT at the state and local level here in SD.

The REPs need to be careful here too, and heed the lesson. Giving Evangelicals a place at the table, a voice....is fine, is GREAT! However, if Evengelicals begin to dictate the agenda, and the Republican party gravitates toward THAT extreme.....then the REPs will be in trouble during the next election.
I sincerely doubt that will happen.

Neither do we "evangelicals" expect it.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:26 PM
I doubt it was just the "Evangelical Christians" that swung it, but perhaps, if they are responsible for swinging this and other elections, the Dems should consider their views and put a canidate up there that will support some of their views instead of someone that is openly agaisnt just about all of their stances.

The problem I see with the Democrats is they keep wanting extremist in there that will try to push the country to the far left. They need to consider what the Country is trying to tell them and put up a moderate, main-stream canidate that opposes the far left extremes of his party. For example, find a canidate that isn't extreme on abortions (they don't even have to be anti-abortion, just not extreme left on the issue) and a democrat canidate that doesn't have a record of speaking against (or voting against) gun control and you will split 2 of the larger groups that tend to go republican - Christians and the NRA.
"Compassionate Conservatisim" is really an oxymoron. Bush is a Liberal Republican on Social issues. He delayed even speaking on the Gay marriage thing, he was MIA on the 10 commandments issues. The only thing he was conservative on, was the war and taxes.


Yet, the Dems see him as so right that he is Hitler. Perhaps it is that the Dems are SO LEFT, that they cannot see clearly anymore.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:27 PM
Uh, the exit polls indicate the increased numbers of evangelicals swung the election.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Hey, there were a lot of Log Cabins pouring their syrup for Bush too.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:29 PM
Technically they are correct saying that evangelicals swung this election.

Of course, you could pick about any group that turned out roughly 4-5 million more for Bush this year than in 2000.
No, Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Francisco swung this election.

It was retribution for their flaunting the will of the people.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:30 PM
I'm sorry. I saw the stats and the evangelicals are CLAIMING victory because of their efforts...

I'll find you some links.
As we should.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 03:31 PM
I always said Denise was a terrorist supporter. Now she won't say who she prays too. I got 10/1 on Allah.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:31 PM
The Evangelicals can "claim" victory all they want. It doesn't mean they're correct.
We are not the only ones that won in this election.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:33 PM
Thank you for proving my point.

It's precisely why the Democrats, in their current incarnation, will not be able to win another national election.

Caring about moral and religion DOES NOT equal "evangelical". It doesn't even mean Christian.
But they HATE Christians. Perhaps that is why they HATE Bush so much.

htismaqe
11-04-2004, 03:34 PM
THAT is the problem of the Democratic party, no doubt about it. It's why I voted for Bush and Thune, but voted DEMOCRAT at the state and local level here in SD.

The REPs need to be careful here too, and heed the lesson. Giving Evangelicals a place at the table, a voice....is fine, is GREAT! However, if Evengelicals begin to dictate the agenda, and the Republican party gravitates toward THAT extreme.....then the REPs will be in trouble during the next election.

Exactly.

Mainstream America has little tolerance for extremism, from either side...

Joshua's Gen
11-04-2004, 03:36 PM
You're an evangelical? Well, welcome brother!

I mean, I don't go to church...but I believe in the Christian God, so I am too!

Thanks for the welcome! Hey, a guy can get welcomed around here without absurdly being called a skinhead, whoduthunkit ROFL

I'm j/k, but it's good to meet you. :)

All the more curious about Big Daddy's question since someone avoids it..

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY
What's your religion meme, you posted a god thread today.

:thumb:

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 03:37 PM
When I get exit polled...I lie.
Exit polls should be banned.

KCTitus
11-04-2004, 03:41 PM
All the more curious about Big Daddy's question since someone avoids it..

Uhh....you better grab a snickers, you're going to be waiting an awful long time.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 03:42 PM
Thanks for the welcome! Hey, a guy can get welcomed around here without absurdly being called a skinhead, whoduthunkit ROFL

I'm j/k, but it's good to meet you. :)

All the more curious about Big Daddy's question since someone avoids it..



:thumb:

Welcome to the BB. :thumb:

Denise won't answer, she rarely does when she's cornered. When she does the answer is usually totally hypocritical or she lies. I have been asking her all day. Her response (if she makes it) will be that she doesn't like me as a poster so she is ignoring me. I would ignore someone too if they constantly pulled my covers all the time and spanked me in front of everyone.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 04:34 PM
Thanks for the welcome! Hey, a guy can get welcomed around here without absurdly being called a skinhead, whoduthunkit ROFL

I'm j/k, but it's good to meet you. :)

All the more curious about Big Daddy's question since someone avoids it..



:thumb:

I'm not avoiding it. I have said individual on ignore.

I'm not anti-God but lean anti-organized religion. I'm a recovered Catholic...that being said if I were to say I'm a certain religion I would say I've studied liberal Christian 'religions' and Eastern 'religious' philosophy.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 04:49 PM
I'm not avoiding it. I have said individual on ignore.

I'm not anti-God but lean anti-organized religion. I'm a recovered Catholic...that being said if I were to say I'm a certain religion I would say I've studied liberal Christian 'religions' and Eastern 'religious' philosophy.


Told ya. Who do you pray to dingbat?

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 04:52 PM
Told ya. Who do you pray to dingbat?


You know, for all of the clever and mean names thrown Denise's way, dingbat just seems way too funny to me right now.


Post quoted for the dense one.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:00 PM
I'm not avoiding it. I have said individual on ignore.

I'm not anti-God but lean anti-organized religion. I'm a recovered Catholic...that being said if I were to say I'm a certain religion I would say I've studied liberal Christian 'religions' and Eastern 'religious' philosophy.

So, to the new evangelical on the board, this gives you a good idea. She probably is a 'there is no truth' type and prefers stripes of religion that won't ask for an inconvenient changes in lifestyle or political persuasions.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:03 PM
So, to the new evangelical on the board, this gives you a good idea. She probably is a 'there is no truth' type and prefers stripes of religion that won't ask for an inconvenient changes in lifestyle or political persuasions.

I prefer to keep my politics and religion separate...my God and my President as well.

http://www.u-r-next.com/bushJC.jpg

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:05 PM
Told ya. Who do you pray to dingbat?

I doubt if it's Allah, then she wouldn't be allowed to hate men.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:08 PM
I doubt if it's Allah, then she wouldn't be allowed to hate men.

correction: ignorant bigoted men. :thumb:

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:11 PM
I prefer to keep my politics and religion separate...my God and my President as well.

http://www.u-r-next.com/bushJC.jpg

Gee how convenient, you can't be held to any standard that way.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:11 PM
correction: ignorant bigoted men. :thumb:

So, if you hate people based on their personal choices or superficial attributes doesn't that make YOU a bigot? Sort of like if I said I hated gay people or something?

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:12 PM
correction: ignorant bigoted men. :thumb:

correction: Any man with huevos, she is OK with the homo's and Metro's.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:14 PM
So, if you hate people based on their personal choices or superficial attributes doesn't that make YOU a bigot? Sort of like if I said I hated gay people or something?

Well you said hate. I have a severe disdain for people who are bigoted or intolerant because that is a choice...

unlike being Black, gay, Arab, etc.

SECTION11
11-04-2004, 05:15 PM
Wow.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:15 PM
correction: Any man with huevos, she is OK with the homo's and Metro's.

I dunno man, I think that she has secretly got it for you. I mean, she is always talking about you, she pays special attention to everything you say. You know, like in elementary school where if a girl liked you she would do something mean, like put gum in your hair? Come on dude, she's available. Hit it ROFL

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:16 PM
Well you said hate. I have a severe disdain for people who are bigoted or intolerant because that is a choice...

unlike being Black, gay, Arab, etc.

That's a nice little intellectual bomb shelter you have built there.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:17 PM
I dunno man, I think that she has secretly got it for you. I mean, she is always talking about you, she pays special attention to everything you say. You know, like in elementary school where if a girl liked you she would do something mean, like put gum in your hair? Come on dude, she's available. Hit it ROFL

No, I've got him on ignore and if it weren't for folks quoting him or talking to me about him that is where he'll stay with the other losers I've had there for the past few years.

You forget they exist...it's quite a nice feature. And one that will work immensely improved now that I will refuse to address posts directed to me with quotes from or by him.

Cochise
11-04-2004, 05:18 PM
No, I've got him on ignore and if it weren't for folks quoting him or talking to me about him that is where he'll stay with the other losers I've had there for the past few years.

You forget they exist...it's quite a nice feature.

Didn't work that way for you so I quit bothering. :banghead: ROFL

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:19 PM
Didn't work that way for you so I quit bothering. :banghead: ROFL


You lack willpower...

you are WEAK. Not my problem. :thumb:

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:20 PM
Let me make it simple for you Denise since you won't answer the freakin question. Do you in any way acknowledge Allah as being god? Simple question will you please answer it?

Everyone here now should already know the answer so I guess it doesn't matter. Recovering Catholic with Eastern Religion thrown in. :hmmm:

Translation Allah is my god and the christian's are satan's spawn.

Ah yes the white devil, especially if it's male. Sure seems to make sense to me.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:23 PM
You lack willpower...

you are WEAK. Not my problem. :thumb:

Look everyone, Ms. living off society and the ex's is calling other people weak.

Calcountry
11-04-2004, 05:33 PM
I prefer to keep my politics and religion separate...my God and my President as well.

http://www.u-r-next.com/bushJC.jpg
So to achieve that, you must elect only a politician that is Godless? right?

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:36 PM
Let me make it simple for you Denise since you won't answer the freakin question. Do you in any way acknowledge Allah as being god? Simple question will you please answer it?

Everyone here now should already know the answer so I guess it doesn't matter. Recovering Catholic with Eastern Religion thrown in. :hmmm:

Translation Allah is my god and the christian's are satan's spawn.

Ah yes the white devil, especially if it's male. Sure seems to make sense to me.



Just in case she still has you on ignore BD.;)

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:36 PM
Look everyone, Ms. living off society and the ex's is calling other people weak.



Figured I might as well quote this one too.:)

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:40 PM
So to achieve that, you must elect only a politician that is Godless? right?

Nope. To achieve that you elect a politician who has their personal spiritual beliefs, their religious beliefs, and their political beliefs (especially regarding their constituents) separate.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:48 PM
Nope. To achieve that you elect a politician who has their personal spiritual beliefs and their political beliefs (especially regarding their constituents) separate.


That's about the worst English I have ever seen. So what you are saying (I Think) is that you would only support a politician who would never follow god and his heart, nice.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:49 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by memyselfI
Nope. To achieve that you elect a politician who has their personal spiritual beliefs and their political beliefs (especially regarding their constituents) separate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's about the worst English I have ever seen. So what you are saying (I Think) is that you would only support a politician who would never follow god and his heart, nice.
That's about the worst English I have ever seen. So what you are saying (I Think) is that you would only support a politician who would never follow god and his heart, nice.



There you go BD.:)

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 05:49 PM
Figured I might as well quote this one too.:)


You ROCK pastor!!!

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:51 PM
For the good 'Pastor' who could be serving God or doing something more productive...

No, I've got him on ignore and if it weren't for folks quoting him or talking to me about him that is where he'll stay with the other losers I've had there for the past few years.

You forget they exist...it's quite a nice feature. And one that will work immensely improved now that I will refuse to address posts directed to me with quotes from or by him.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:51 PM
You ROCK pastor!!!


Hate to think of you being on iggy where your words of wisdom can't be read.:D

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:53 PM
Hate to think of you being on iggy where your words of wisdom can't be read.:D

Hate to think there are tortured souls out there actually worthy of the effort you are wasting on BD. :shake:

I'll take it you've performed all your saving of souls for the day and are now doing charity.. ROFL

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:55 PM
For the good 'Pastor' who could be serving God or doing something more productive...



But I see you still couldn't resist replying.



As for productivity, it is clear you don't have anything better do to 'cause you've been posting all day long. 'Course if you are on here arguing with conservatives that keeps you from being someplace where you could really influence someone with your liberal views.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 05:56 PM
But I see you still couldn't resist replying.



As for productivity, it is clear you don't have anything better do to 'cause you've been posting all day long. 'Course if you are on here arguing with conservatives that keeps you from being someplace where you could really influence someone with your liberal views.

I'm addressing YOU. Not the ignored.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 05:57 PM
Uhm, can I get a ruling here? Didn't meme say she was no longer replying to any posts that quoted Big Daddy in post #139 of this thread? That was what I took from her promise anyway. Then she goes and replies to 2 of my posts where I quoted BD. So much for the integrity of sticking to her promises.

SECTION11
11-04-2004, 05:58 PM
What exactly does following God have to do with being the President?


This is insane.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 06:04 PM
Actually, Meme is right about one thing, I really do have other things that I should be doing - Like putting another coat of oil on the stock of my almost finished rifle so I can take it out in search of a deer head to have stuffed and hung above the mantle.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 06:04 PM
I'm addressing YOU. Not the ignored.

I would expect no less from a complete wimp. Keep hiding from those that pull your covers and spank you in front of everyone you look that much weaker for the effort.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 06:06 PM
No, I've got him on ignore and if it weren't for folks quoting him or talking to me about him that is where he'll stay with the other losers I've had there for the past few years.

You forget they exist...it's quite a nice feature. And one that will work immensely improved now that I will refuse to address posts directed to me with quotes from or by him.


Sweet. I think I am going to add some random quote from Troy to my sig.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 06:07 PM
Sweet. I think I am going to add some random quote from Troy to my sig.



She still won't ignore you.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 06:09 PM
Nope. To achieve that you elect a politician who has their personal spiritual beliefs, their religious beliefs, and their political beliefs (especially regarding their constituents) separate.


This is bullshit because it is impossible. My political beliefs are shaped in large part by my spiritual/religious beliefs. There is no seperating them. I have heard this argument before, and it is completely sensless.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 06:10 PM
She still won't ignore you.



I know, she can't help herself.

I still might try it.......

Joshua's Gen
11-04-2004, 06:33 PM
Uhh....you better grab a snickers, you're going to be waiting an awful long time.

ROFL

Welcome to the BB. :thumb:

Denise won't answer, she rarely does when she's cornered. When she does the answer is usually totally hypocritical or she lies. I have been asking her all day. Her response (if she makes it) will be that she doesn't like me as a poster so she is ignoring me. I would ignore someone too if they constantly pulled my covers all the time and spanked me in front of everyone.

Thanks for the welcome! :thumb:

I'm not avoiding it. I have said individual on ignore.

I'm not anti-God but lean anti-organized religion. I'm a recovered Catholic...that being said if I were to say I'm a certain religion I would say I've studied liberal Christian 'religions' and Eastern 'religious' philosophy.

And thanks for the 411! :)

Inspector
11-04-2004, 07:37 PM
naw....

IMO - Republicans could see that Kerry had a lot of support and could very well win the election. I think that scared the crap out of most reasonable sane people who care deeply for this country and their childrens future.

As a result, they came out in record numbers to assure the future of their beloved country.

I'm sure there were those who were swayed by the religious aspect, but by and large, I think it was simply a matter of self or country preservation.

Any Democrat is a threat to the USA, but Kerry was even worse. He caused the enormous turnout simply by making people think he had a chance. I know plenty of people who made sure they voted for just this very reason. If it wasn't close, they would have styed home.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 07:39 PM
naw....

IMO - Republicans could see that Kerry had a lot of support and could very well win the election. I think that scared the crap out of most reasonable sane people who care deeply for this country and their childrens future.


Actually, we have a number of registered Democrats in our church that turned out to vote for Bush because of that very thought.

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 07:42 PM
The inverse is also true.
I don't deny that there is a contingent of RWers who bear animosity towards the opposition. But my sense that the overwhelming majority of Repub voters think Dems are wrong, while the overwhelming majority of Dem voters think Repubs are evil or stupid.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:42 PM
Uhm, can I get a ruling here? Didn't meme say she was no longer replying to any posts that quoted Big Daddy in post #139 of this thread? That was what I took from her promise anyway. Then she goes and replies to 2 of my posts where I quoted BD. So much for the integrity of sticking to her promises.

Doll, I'm not responding to him using you to speak to me...A man of God's word certainly has better channels to be communicating information from.

I'll respond to you by acknowledging you're quoting him but I'm not bothering to respond to the posts so you can stop wasting your God given talent and energy. Got that. :thumb:

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 07:48 PM
Doll, I'm not responding to him using you to speak to me...A man of God word certainly has better channels to be communicating information from.

I'll respond to you by acknowledging you're quoting him but I'm not bothering to respond to the posts so you can stop wasting your God given talent and energy. Got that. :thumb:



DOLL???? DOLL?!?!?!?!?

I'm not sure that I'm too comfortable with you reffering to me that way.:)


Actually, I wondered where you headed off too. Thought maybe you needed to get the dishes done, floors vacumed and dinner on the table before the man of the house got home.:)

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:49 PM
I don't deny that there is a contingent of RWers who bear animosity towards the opposition. But my sense that the overwhelming majority of Repub voters think Dems are wrong, while the overwhelming majority of Dem voters think Repubs are evil or stupid.

No, BL. I don't think the 'overwhelming majority of Reps are evil, stupid, ignorant just wrong. There are moderate Republicans who I like and could actually vote for. They are the socially liberal but fiscally conservative branch of the party that I differ with on some some domestic and some foreign policy issues but they are not the RWNJ's or NeoCons that have hijacked the party...

Both sides are guilty of overlooking the middle in an attempt to out shout the far end of the spectrum...neither gets a pass.

stevieray
11-04-2004, 07:49 PM
No, I've got him on ignore and if it weren't for folks quoting him or talking to me about him that is where he'll stay with the other losers I've had there for the past few years.

You forget they exist...it's quite a nice feature. And one that will work immensely improved now that I will refuse to address posts directed to me with quotes from or by him.

Can anyone tell Bush lost?, Denise is back to attempting to make every topic about her, of course after mentioning and revalidating her actions about people she has on ignore 500 times.... just prove to you how lttle she cares.

ROFL

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:50 PM
DOLL???? DOLL?!?!?!?!?

I'm not sure that I'm too comfortable with you reffering to me that way.:)


Actually, I wondered where you headed off too. Thought maybe you needed to get the dishes done, floors vacumed and dinner on the table before the man of the house got home.:)

I had to run to the grocery store and fix dinner. Now I have to get the kids ready for bed before the spousal unit returns...so you were close. :thumb:

Bwana
11-04-2004, 07:50 PM
DOLL???? DOLL?!?!?!?!?

I'm not sure that I'm too comfortable with you reffering to me that way.:)


Actually, I wondered where you headed off too. Thought maybe you needed to get the dishes done, floors vacumed and dinner on the table before the man of the house got home.:)

ROFL

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 07:52 PM
Say Denise, do you know why God made women's feet smaller then Mens?
































So they can stand closer to the sink.:p:D

Frazod
11-04-2004, 07:53 PM
Perhaps these people just simply OD'd on all this gay crap that permeates the media anymore. It died down a bit in the months leading up to the election, but I guess the damage was done. I personally can't understand how Rosie f#cking O'Donnell getting married is the lead story on the nightly news, especially considering that it's an election year, there's a damn war on, and there are so many other real issues out there that are infinitely more important than a couple of carpet-munchers tieing the knot. I got sick of it quick, and I'm pretty damned tolerant of what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I simply DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT, and I really don't want to hear about it, either. Keep it to yourself, and leave me the hell alone.

I think lots of people who feel the same way sent a clear message - that being ENOUGH ALREADY.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:53 PM
This is bullshit because it is impossible. My political beliefs are shaped in large part by my spiritual/religious beliefs. There is no seperating them. I have heard this argument before, and it is completely sensless.

It's not impossible and it's not absolute either. For instance, MLK argued that civil rights were not only a social issue but a religious one too. He made the argument using his religious and spiritual beliefs but he also framed it in a political and social context that could be identified with by people who did not necessarily share his religious views...

The minute we start assuming that our elected officials are also our spiritual or religious leaders in addition to our political ones is the day we can kiss democracy goodbye...hello theocracy.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:55 PM
Say Denise, do you know why God made women's feet smaller then Mens?
































So they can stand closer to the sink.:p:D

ROFL

What is HIS excuse for making their brains smaller... ;) :p

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 07:57 PM
:hmmm:I'm not sure why God made women's brains smaller.:hmmm:

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 07:59 PM
:hmmm:I'm not sure why God made women's brains smaller.:hmmm:

See, with a bigger brain you'd understand I meant Mens. :p ROFL

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 08:00 PM
No, BL. I don't think the 'overwhelming majority of Reps are evil, stupid, ignorant just wrong. There are moderate Republicans who I like and could actually vote for. They are the socially liberal but fiscally conservative branch of the party that I differ with on some some domestic and some foreign policy issues but they are not the RWNJ's or NeoCons that have hijacked the party...

Both sides are guilty of overlooking the middle in an attempt to out shout the far end of the spectrum...neither gets a pass.
I have a number of very good friends who I know by seeing them interact with others I have to remain silent on politics, because even a hint of conservatism in your tone will make things strained. And they're not particularly liberal, just filled with animosity towards Republicans. Teachers and Plaintiff's attorneys mostly. A friend of mine who shares many of the same friends refuses to even vote, turn on the news shows when they are around or mention the pres' or Kerry's name in their presence.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 08:05 PM
I have a number of very good friends who I know by seeing them interact with others I have to remain silent on politics, because even a hint of conservatism in your tone will make things strained. And they're not particularly liberal, just filled with animosity towards Republicans. Teachers and Plaintiff's attorneys mostly. A friend of mine who shares many of the same friends refuses to even vote, turn on the news shows when they are around or mention the pres' or Kerry's name in their presence.

I also have a number of good friends who are conservative. We have heated discussions but in the end we know and understand that their are good people behind the beliefs and that each of us has come to our beliefs in an educated and thoughtful fashion...

for instance, that means these friends of mine are not among the large % of DUHbya supporters and conservatives who STILL believe (according to recent polls) there are WMD or the SH/911 connection. They believe there has been ample time to establish the truthfulness of these claims and given the lack of substantial evidence they believe they are not true until proven otherwise. That does not diminish their belief in the President or the policy but it does make them wonder if he's being completely forthright with the American people or if people in his administration are being completely forthright with him...

again, thoughtful and critically analyzing the situation vs. outright spin and CYA on behalf of President. They are still willing to give him the BOD but are not willing to be an apologist for him.

Unfortunately, it appears my friends here are small in numbers or at least not vocal enough and thus some of the Reps and most of the Cons look like they are primarily of the RWNJ variety.

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 08:10 PM
See, with a bigger brain you'd understand I meant Mens. :p ROFL


See, with a bigger brain you would have been more clear.ROFL ROFL

Baby Lee
11-04-2004, 08:11 PM
I also have a number of good friends who are conservative. We have heated discussions but in the end we know and understand that their are good people behind the beliefs and that each of us has come to our beliefs in an educated and thoughtful fashion...

for instance, that means these friends of mine are not among the large % of DUHbya supporters and conservatives who STILL believe (according to recent polls) there are WMD or the SH/911 connection. They believe there has been ample time to establish the truthfulness of these claims and given the lack of substantial evidence they believe they are not true until proven otherwise. That does not diminish their belief in the President or the policy but it does make them wonder if he's being completely forthright with the American people or if people in his administration are being completely forthright with him...

again, thoughtful and critically analyzing the situation vs. outright spin and CYA on behalf of President. They are still willing to give him the BOD but not willing to be an apologist for him.

Unfortunately, it appears my friends here are small in numbers or at least not vocal enough and thus some of the Reps and most of the Cons look like they are primarily of the RWNJ variety.
I think part of the problem is that my friends are mostly very smart, highly educated people, still with very different day-to-day experiences. The teachers have Masters Degrees and their life of late has been centered on a combination of meeting NCLB standards and dealing with the massive reorganization of schools in St. Louis. The attorneys are centered on their respective practices and have little time for the news.
One of the oddest, and to me most selfish, takes was from a family law attorney* who was vehement in her stance on gay marriage. . . . you guessed it. . . because she wanted to be making money on gay divorce in the next few years.




* - we ended up talking with her on politics because she is new to 'the group,' being the GF/Fiance/now Wife of one my buddy's co-workers. First time we all met her, it got pretty heated.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 08:12 PM
See, with a bigger brain you would have been more clear.ROFL ROFL


ROFL Must be the dish soap fumes... :p

PastorMikH
11-04-2004, 08:13 PM
ROFL Must be the dish soap fumes... :p



ROFL ROFL ROFL

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 08:15 PM
I think part of the problem is that my friends are mostly very smart, highly educated people, still with very different day-to-day experiences. The teachers have Masters Degrees and their life of late has been centered on a combination of meeting NCLB standards and dealing with the massive reorganization of schools in St. Louis. The attorneys are centered on their respective practices and have little time for the news.
One of the oddest, and to me most selfish, takes was from a family law attorney who was vehement in her stance on gay marriage. . . . you guessed it. . . because she wanted to be making money on gay divorce in the next few years.

Well in all fairness....

dontcha think the rhetoric aimed at the NEA and trial lawyers might sour some to Republicans????

Just as the specifically targeted rhetoric aimed at people from a profession on the other side would be.

As far as being heated, unless people are getting personally offensive then I don't understand the harm in having a heated but informative discussion. It can be intimidating to some but if you see a person who is informed and able to articulate a POV (vs. regurgitating talking points) then I don't understand why in our country this type of talk is considered dangerous or otherwise a negative.

I happen to think if there was MORE of it then there would be LESS shouting from the extremes on both sides.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 09:21 PM
It's not impossible and it's not absolute either. For instance, MLK argued that civil rights were not only a social issue but a religious one too. He made the argument using his religious and spiritual beliefs but he also framed it in a political and social context that could be identified with by people who did not necessarily share his religious views...

So framing the argument in a non-religious manner means that MLK seperated his religious and political beliefs? Has anyone told you that you are an idiot lately? The stances he took were in part because of his religious beliefs, PERIOD. There is no seperating that.

The minute we start assuming that our elected officials are also our spiritual or religious leaders in addition to our political ones is the day we can kiss democracy goodbye...hello theocracy.

Only in your imagination is this happening. Anyone who looks to Bush as spiritual leader is so far out on the fringe of society, they are almost in your neck of the woods. And the population starts getting pretty damned sparse out that way.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 09:24 PM
I think part of the problem is that my friends are mostly very smart, highly educated people, still with very different day-to-day experiences.


And Denise hangs out with the uneducated welfare bums, who are sticking each other in the bums, while praying to Allah and cleaning their RPGs.

Garcia Bronco
11-04-2004, 09:45 PM
Exit polls should be banned.


I don't really lie....but my point stands.

memyselfI
11-04-2004, 10:06 PM
And Denise hangs out with the uneducated welfare bums, who are sticking each other in the bums, while praying to Allah and cleaning their RPGs.

You know the funny thing is for all this degrading welfare rhetoric I actually do not know one single person on welfare...

but don't let a perfecty false allegation stop you from your perception of a good insult.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 10:13 PM
You know the funny thing is for all this degrading welfare rhetoric I actually do not know one single person on welfare...

but don't let a perfecty false allegation stop you from your perception of a good insult.


It was a joke based upon the way BL worded his statement. I figured you get pissy about it, and when you didn't I decided to have some fun with it.

Now go away.

BIG_DADDY
11-04-2004, 10:49 PM
It's not impossible and it's not absolute either. For instance, MLK argued that civil rights were not only a social issue but a religious one too. He made the argument using his religious and spiritual beliefs but he also framed it in a political and social context that could be identified with by people who did not necessarily share his religious views...

The minute we start assuming that our elected officials are also our spiritual or religious leaders in addition to our political ones is the day we can kiss democracy goodbye...hello theocracy.

I love it when you try and sound intelligent. Nobody has ever looked at our president as a religious leader. Having similar beliefs and wanting someone in office with similar beliefs on any level is just natural. The only theocracy we ever have to deal with are these psycho's in the ME you support.

Raiderhader
11-04-2004, 10:58 PM
I love it when you try and sound intelligent. Nobody has ever looked at our president as a religious leader. Having similar beliefs and wanting someone in office with similar beliefs on any level is just natural. The only theocracy we ever have to deal with are these psycho's in the ME you support.


Exactly.

SBK
11-04-2004, 11:40 PM
When your party gravitates towards EXTREMISM, expect the people in the middle to gravitate AWAY from it. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal.

Good thing libs can't see this. Longer they stay out of power longer the prosperity of this nation can continue.

And the more belly aching in the media! ROFL