Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[KogaTengu]

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant "Genesis Creationism". That's what I get for doing two things at once, huh?

Oh, what does 50,000 foot level mean?

OK gotcha. Oh - the 50,000 foot thing doesn't mean I died and came back It's just an expression for a high level view...

 

[michaeledward]

once again, you buy into the liberal hype withoout checking your sources. look it up, more minorities, and also blacks, are propering when a republican is in office than a democrat. the key figure im refering to is business ownership. that is not a guess, it is a cold hard FACT. if you are going to continue, at least bother yourself a little to check the facts.

rustyself, there is a key on your keyboard called 'Shift'. If you press it along with a letter, you get an upper case. Can you try that occassionally. Maybe at the beginning of a sentence, or when using a proper name. It makes the reading a bit easier.

I see that you are not attempting to answer my question.

By your definition, does 'propering' (I assume you mean 'prospering') only occur when one owns a business?

You claim that minorities open business more frequently under Republican administrations than under Democratic adminstrations. Do you have evidence that those businesses make money? Do you have evidence that those businesses stay in business longer than the normal failure rate of a new business ~ five years, according to what I have heard. Do you have evidence that those minorities that do not open business do better under Republican administrations? Do you have evidence that shows the opening of a business by a minority, is not the result of losing a job because of the actions of the Republican administrations? Do you have evidence that supports the argument at the local, state, and regional levels to this fact, or are you only looking at numbers based on the affiliation at the National level?

You see, rustyself, when you throw out a single data point, without any metrics for comparison, even if that data point is a fact (and I am not conceeding your data point is factual), you don't necessarily bluster your argument.

Under the current Adminstration, the number of uninsured has increased and the number of citizens living in poverty has increased. Hardly, could one say these people, minority or otherwise, are 'propering'.

 

[Big Don]

Do you have any proof of your statement that the number of uninsured, which by the way, includes people like me who CHOOSE not to have health insurance, or that the number of CITIZENS living in poverty have increased? Or are you just throwing out data points?
The oft quoted number of 40 million uninsured is intentionally misleading.
12 to 20 million illegal aliens, who, by the way, are CRIMINALS by just being here are uninsured. That drops the number by half, now doesn't it? Oh, and it leaves out those of us who, being healthy, don't feel the need to add to their expenses. Should I be forced to pay for insurance I don't want?

 

[Big Don]

Why is it that the evil, racist republicans are responsible for the appointing the first female jurist to the Supreme Court, the first (TWO) Black Secretaries of State, one of which, Dr Rice, is a woman too...? The first hispanic Attorney General? yeah, republicans are evil, racist, sexist, bigots, huh?

 

[Marginal]

The first hispanic Attorney General? yeah, republicans are evil, racist, sexist, bigots, huh?

There's going to be an asterisk next to that one in the history books.

 

[Big Don]

There's going to be an asterisk next to that one in the history books.

Why? Was Alberto Gonzales not Hispanic? What was he? Irish?

 

[michaeledward]

For the same reason Barry Bonds home run count will have an asterick; Because serious watchers of history will realize that something was not right with the event.

Attorney General Goznales presided over a Justice Department that intentionally disregarded Constitutionality.

And, I think that Ms. Rice will similiarly have an asterick next to her term as Secretary of State. Certianly, her term as National Security Advisor was wracked with incompetence. And her apptitude has shown little improvement in the last three years.

 

[Big Don]

For the same reason Barry Bonds home run count will have an asterick; Because serious watchers of history will realize that something was not right with the event.

Attorney General Goznales presided over a Justice Department that intentionally disregarded Constitutionality.

And, I think that Ms. Rice will similiarly have an asterick next to her term as Secretary of State. Certianly, her term as National Security Advisor was wracked with incompetence. And her apptitude has shown little improvement in the last three years.

Were you a tad less leftist, you'd realize how ridiculous your assertions are. Janet Reno's tenure was competent? Killing 80 ish men, women and children in Waco was Constitutional?(the deadliest government action taken against American citizens on U.S. soil since the Civil War )Sending armed federal agents to grab a 6 year old was competent?

Leaking Richard Jewell's name when he was innocent was a great call, wasn't it?
Secretary Albright's leadership in North Korea and Kosovo worked out really well, didn't it?
Hmm, Henry Cisneros wasn't just crooked, he was a cheating husband, making him fit in just great in the Clinton admin.
Sandy Berger, Vince Foster, Web Hubble, my oh my did Mr Clinton have a lot of crooked friends...

 

[rustyself]

michaeledward,

you cant rebutt an arguement intelligently, so you resort to critiquing my writing style?

you people kill me. you call us racist, and when we give proof we are not, you come back with trash talk.

reminds me of a 5 year old spoiled child. then again, hitler was never happy with anything anyone tried to do for him, either. neither is your buddy from iran, or the extremists he supports.

the caps button thing was a little experiment. i mean, if you believe in freedom of speech as much as you claim to, why come on here complaining about the way someone speaks in a forum? and so far, youre the ONLY one to do it! i should be able to speak any way i want to, right.

you mean to tell me you support flag burning and turning our flag upside down (both staunchly supported by YOUR party, and the aclu) , but it BOTHERS you that i dont capitalize my letters? kinda hypocritical, huh? feel that?

 

[michaeledward]

the caps button thing was a little experiment. i mean, if you believe in freedom of speech as much as you claim to, why come on here complaining about the way someone speaks in a forum? and so far, youre the ONLY one to do it! i should be able to speak any way i want to, right.

My apologies, sir.

You certainly are welcome to express yourself as you see fit. I have before been accused of being a bit of a patriach with the Queen's English. I have often heard arguments about immigrants not willing to correctly learn the language. And sometimes, newcomers to internet forums are not quite familiar with the appropriate etiquitte. Some join conversations with all capital letters, some seem to think that a message board is an instant message system. But, as you have chosen to invoke an experiment in upper and lower case letters, bully for you, sir, bully for you.

I shall leave you now, so that you may continue your experiment, in English, and in Godwin's law.

 

[Doc_Jude]

how does one teach "genesis" without the "creationism" you refer to?

I'm referring to the public schools in this country that, due to pressures from the surrounding community, teach Genesis Creationism IN SCIENCE CLASSES.
It's an atrocity.

 

[rustyself]

most christians feel as if teaching a "theory" such as evolution is an atrocity.

what in this world is "evolving?" why did it just stop? what created this "goo" that everything evolved from? why, with all of our "knowledge," cant it be repeated in a controlled environment?

christians have solid truth to these answers. we have already seen what secular scientists have to say about this subject- "i dont know, and im ok with that."

 

[Marginal]

most christians feel as if teaching a "theory" such as evolution is an atrocity.

what in this world is "evolving?" why did it just stop?

It didn't stop.

 

[Kodiak61]

It didn't stop.

Evolution as defined by Encarta Dictionary (on-line; secular). “The theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.” A closer look at this definition points to ALL members come to possess the favorable traits. If you follow this logic their there should be NO MORE primates as the one who did not evolve would have died out do to lack of mate selection. Where is the ooze slopping up on the shore to begin the process? Where are the fish becoming land animals? I am NOT talking about fish that spend some time on land and then return to the water. Where are the primates walking out of the jungle to begin life as “Peking man” or Neanderthals? Where are the reptiles sprouting feathers and taking flight, as some say the dinosaurs evolved? If evolution is the dynamic, ongoing process it’s proponents claim it to be, why have we not seen it’s wonders in our life time?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Evolution as defined by Encarta Dictionary (on-line; secular). “The theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.” A closer look at this definition points to ALL members come to possess the favorable traits. If you follow this logic their there should be NO MORE primates as the one who did not evolve would have died out do to lack of mate selection. Where is the ooze slopping up on the shore to begin the process? Where are the fish becoming land animals? I am NOT talking about fish that spend some time on land and then return to the water. Where are the primates walking out of the jungle to begin life as “Peking man” or Neanderthals? Where are the reptiles sprouting feathers and taking flight, as some say the dinosaurs evolved? If evolution is the dynamic, ongoing process it’s proponents claim it to be, why have we not seen it’s wonders in our life time?

Evolution is due to environmental adaptation as much as genetic variation. Do some homework. You're more likely to win the lottery than you are to see the "wonders" of evolution in a single human lifetime.

& there is at least evidence that would seem to support evolution out there in the world. Produce evidence in the fossil record that supports Genesis. or 6000yr world model.

(preemptive apology for thread drift)

 

[rustyself]

as stated a few pages ago, the earth is not 6000 years old, more like billions of years old. this was all hashed out a couple of conversations ago. if youre going to jump in, read some of the earlier posts there is a huge gap of millions of years between the 1st and 2nd verses in genesis. this is also explained later in the bible.

also, it comes to mind that if evolution were true, we would see some new life springing up.
why?
because there are MILLIONS of different species on earth. are you telling me they all stop evolving at the same time? it would stand to reason that at least some of them would be in the middle of a metomorphosis.

evolution is creating life where there was none (or in some cases, primitive). how can any reasoned individual believe that?

 

[Ray]

The age of our earth, the mode of it's coming into being has no bearing on one's political leaning. While some people may be republican or democrat and share similar religous or cultural beliefs, the whole set of republicans does not include the whole set of creationists, nor the whole set of christians. There are people who are of other faith and of no faith

By the same token, the set of democrats does include different groups of people including christians.

 

[michaeledward]

Thank you for noticing, Ray. You are, of course, correct. Some of the newer members haven't been through that discussion here before, so there is a bit of drift in the last several postings here.

It is interesting, I think, to not that several prominant religious conservatives have recently made noise about selecting a third party candidate if Mr. Guiliani is nominated from the Republican primary process.

One wonders what the primary driver of this Republican Sub-set is causing this threat ... is it Mr. Guiliani's Pro-Choice position, his multiple marriages, his non-answer on the evolution/creationism debate. What would happen to those Republican party if that sub-set abandoned the party?

 

[Ray]

Thank you for noticing, Ray. You are, of course, correct. Some of the newer members haven't been through that discussion here before, so there is a bit of drift in the last several postings here.

It is interesting, I think, to not that several prominant religious conservatives have recently made noise about selecting a third party candidate if Mr. Guiliani is nominated from the Republican primary process.

One wonders what the primary driver of this Republican Sub-set is causing this threat ... is it Mr. Guiliani's Pro-Choice position, his multiple marriages, his non-answer on the evolution/creationism debate. What would happen to those Republican party if that sub-set abandoned the party?

It is very interesting to me, once an atheist, who has always tried to vote for the candidate that I felt most closely reflected what I wanted in good government and having never taken the religious beliefs of candidates into account, to see that others do take into account things about the candidates that do not reflect upon their ability to lead and to do "the right thing."

Now that I am a believer, a "Mormon" in fact, and I see some who's only opinion of a Mormon candidate is "I'm not voting for a Mormon." I would hope that those who select a candidate do it for more substantial reasons. I fully expect the thinking liberal (no offense) to have better reasons for rejecting a conservative candidate.

I cannot believe that any party contains wholly ethical and upright people. I cannot believe that all people or candidates of any party are wholly altrusitic and have the good of America in their hearts. I personally do not pick candidates on their religious beliefs, nor their scientific understanding...The nation and the world would be a better place if my self-interest was you, and your well-being.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get on a soap box. This thread and it's title, could just as easily been about democrats, socialists, facists and any other political bent. There is plenty of dirt to throw around. I don't like the beatles because they were great thinkers, but because they wrote and played some good tunes...I don't pick government cause they are great thinkers, but because they are great leaders. I have no "hero" worship left because all of my heros are dead, dying or have turned out to be just as human as you and me.

 

[Marginal]

Now that I am a believer, a "Mormon" in fact, and I see some who's only opinion of a Mormon candidate is "I'm not voting for a Mormon." I would hope that those who select a candidate do it for more substantial reasons. I fully expect the thinking liberal (no offense) to have better reasons for rejecting a conservative candidate.

Romney's complete lack of sincerity should bother anyone considering a vote for him at least a little. "Oh X polls slightly better? I now publicly believe X!"