Poll - Democrat or Republican?

BJean · 10-26-2007, 04:42 PM

Oh I quite agree MetalBand! Both parties line their pockets! No question about that. But the debt that we're in is frightening to me. And I agree that we're headed downhill on a runaway train. I don't know how anyone can actually want the job of President of the U.S. Of course on the upside, whatever good a new Pres does, will look darned good to us after what we've been through for the past 8 years.

Sorry, L8BloomR, a political discussion exposes the raw feelings whether we mean for it to or not.

Btw, I would like for you to cite the "non-partisan" study that shows that "liberals" gave less than "conservatives" to the needy. First of all, if the "non-partisan" study clumped liberals with non-religious people, the study is completely flawed. Just as flawed as if it clumped conservatives with religious people. And just because it was large and non-partisan doesn't mean it was a non-biased study with valid results. Not if it was structured the way you stated it.

ELENATION · 10-26-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KariK

Ok so I love polls. And I love politics. So what political party has the most LAP-BAND^® recipient votes? We'll soon find out!!

Republican, I was born republican and will die republican...
Conservative, but not an extremist.......

ELENATION · 10-26-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_NJ

Why lib Dems scare me

loosing core family values
way to socialistic for me
not strong enough on national security
willing to demoralize our country and military for personal gain
want to hand out my money to illegals
George Soros controls them
Move on, controls them
willing to bargain with terrorists
want to raise my taxes
want to take away my gun rights
there against the patriot act (which works obviously)
Flip flop on decisions they make just to appease a poll

Need anymore?

No need to add more, I agree with you100%
Oh wait, did you mention they are way, way to the left....I mean way too far to the left!
Oh yeah, you said it, too socialistic for you!, and for me too!

L8BloomR · 10-26-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJean

Btw, I would like for you to cite the "non-partisan" study that shows that "liberals" gave less than "conservatives" to the needy. First of all, if the "non-partisan" study clumped liberals with non-religious people, the study is completely flawed. Just as flawed as if it clumped conservatives with religious people. And just because it was large and non-partisan doesn't mean it was a non-biased study with valid results. Not if it was structured the way you stated it.

Well, now you have put me to work. I listened to a review of this study and a discussion by the author of it on the radio. I wrote down the name of the author and the study but can't remember where and now will have to search. I believe it was done by Syracuse University, and the person doing it was doing research for a much larger project. He is liberal, btw. He was shocked by his findings because he thought they would be the opposite. As I recall, he broke it down in 4 groups, the ones I mentioned. It must have been a valid study, because I read about the study and these same results in many places, including our very liberal newspaper!

L8BloomR · 10-27-2007, 03:12 AM

The Chronicle, 11/23/2006: Charity's Political Divide

Here is a link to the article I was referring to, but I need to correct a couple of things. This is a book done on a study, and the author is not currently a liberal. He was raised in a liberal home, but is now a registred Independent. I saw quite a few discussions on TV and read articles about his findings earlier this year and found it very interesting.

Boo Boo Kitty · 10-27-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJean

Maybe the reason people here seem to attack the man - George W. Bush - is because we got so darned tired of Republicans attacking the man - Clinton - in very personal ways. You can't have it both ways. You can't attack Clinton with regard to his personal life and then not expect to hear it about Georgie-porgie.

And let's set this record straight. To criticize a president of the United States of America while he's in office is not a criticizism of the United States or its' military. It is in fact, very American and just exactly what the framers of the Constitution made sure that citizens of the United States are able to do without it being considered un-American. Free speech, ya gotta love it, man. Consider the alternative.

Besides it is as far as I'm concerned un-American for people to tell others, with whom they disagree, that because they are Democrats and "liberal" that they aren't good Christians and they are traitors to their country. Balderdash. By insulting their fellow Americans personally aren't they guilty of not sticking with political discussion?

Standing ovation Bjean!! WOO HOO!! I agree with you 110%.

Chris_NJ · 10-28-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJean

Maybe the reason people here seem to attack the man - George W. Bush - is because we got so darned tired of Republicans attacking the man - Clinton - in very personal ways. You can't have it both ways. You can't attack Clinton with regard to his personal life and then not expect to hear it about Georgie-porgie. And let's set this record straight. To criticize a president of the United States of America while he's in office is not a criticizism of the United States or its' military. It is in fact, very American and just exactly what the framers of the Constitution made sure that citizens of the United States are able to do without it being considered un-American. Free speech, ya gotta love it, man. Consider the alternative.
Besides it is as far as I'm concerned un-American for people to tell others, with whom they disagree, that because they are Democrats and "liberal" that they aren't good Christians and they are traitors to their country. Balderdash. By insulting their fellow Americans personally aren't they guilty of not sticking with political discussion?

Oh so GW had sex with and intern and played hide the cigar also? THEN LIED UNDER SWORN OATH. Thats the kicker right there. Its not the fact that he committed adultery on his wife(not that I blame him) its the fact he then lied under oath.

WASaBubbleButt · 10-30-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_NJ

Don't they deserve the respect of the Commander in Chief? To not think after there sacrifice that they don't is plain crazy. No one is stopping anyone from moving out.

If it was my child Bush was saluting in a coffin, I just can't think of a way I could possibly be more insulted.

He's an ass.

WASaBubbleButt · 10-30-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L8BloomR

Just a reminder: That large, non-partisan study done last year showed that conservatives and religious people gave far more $$ and time to charities and needy people than did the non-religious and liberals. ...

Link, please?

One thing I get sick to death of is that when the religious folks donate one of their dimes to a charity they make bloody sure it is counted so everyone knows what a good thing they did. When the secular folks donate they don't make an issue out of it, they don't do it through an organization that counts which religion is claiming the credit and they do it because it is the right thing to do vs. getting "heaven brownie points."

How much is taken into consideration in this study you refer to that shows dollar amounts of each person? There are more religious folks than there are secular folks. Obviously the dollars are going to be more, I want to know what each person donates, secular vs. religious.

Where is this non-partisan study? Links, please?

L8BloomR · 10-30-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WASaBubbleButt

Link, please?

One thing I get sick to death of is that when the religious folks donate one of their dimes to a charity they make bloody sure it is counted so everyone knows what a good thing they did. When the secular folks donate they don't make an issue out of it, they don't do it through an organization that counts which religion is claiming the credit and they do it because it is the right thing to do vs. getting "heaven brownie points."

How much is taken into consideration in this study you refer to that shows dollar amounts of each person? There are more religious folks than there are secular folks. Obviously the dollars are going to be more, I want to know what each person donates, secular vs. religious.

Where is this non-partisan study? Links, please?

I gave the link just a few posts above, #380. I don't think this study had anyone bragging about what they gave to charity; it was a man researching the subject and asking and documenting who gave what. He also researched the same thing in Europe and found the same results. I heard an interview with him on the radio and it was very interesting and not a partisan thing at all. I then read about his work and the results in our local paper and on the evening news and he has written a book which is featured in the link.

BJean · 11-05-2007, 03:40 PM

I sure don't want to argue about this - who gave what, etc. But I just find it very hard to understand how one study provides proof positive that more conservatives give to charity than liberals do.

In order to honestly know the facts - who cares and gives the most - you would have to poll all of the people who donate and that just isn't very likely to be possible. You can do a sampling, but then we know about those things, don't we?

Remember how all of the exit polls after the 2000 presidential election showed that Al Gore was winning by a landslide? Remember the networks having to retract all of their projections? ALL of the exit polls were wrong - hmmmm, or were they?
Were the exit polls skewed or were the elections skewed? :faint:

L8BloomR · 11-05-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJean

I sure don't want to argue about this - who gave what, etc. But I just find it very hard to understand how one study provides proof positive that more conservatives give to charity than liberals do.

In order to honestly know the facts - who cares and gives the most - you would have to poll all of the people who donate and that just isn't very likely to be possible. You can do a sampling, but then we know about those things, don't we?

Remember how all of the exit polls after the 2000 presidential election showed that Al Gore was winning by a landslide? Remember the networks having to retract all of their projections? ALL of the exit polls were wrong - hmmmm, or were they?
Were the exit polls skewed or were the elections skewed? :faint:

As I recall, many of the "exit polls" were done earlier in the day, when many working people were not voting. There was some talk about how that might skew things to the left. I don't know and I don't remember all the facts regarding the issue. But I do know that after a gazillion recounts in Florida, done after the election, Bush still won the vote in Florida and the election via the electoral college.

I would not take as fact results from any survey done by any interest group or political group. This study (that I linked) on charitable donations of time and money was not done as a partisan or political thing. The man doing it was a liberal at the time but was doing this for a larger, non-partisan project. In his radio interview, he said he was shocked by his findings and continued to research to see if there was some error. His study was very large and varied. I posted the link in answer to your discussion with Metalband on the previous page because I thought it was pertinent. Anyone can choose to believe it or not.

BJean · 11-06-2007, 10:34 AM

I can't say that I believe it or not. I just have a problem with the whole premise and one guy's "research".

As for Florida... interesting that you should bring up that state in particular. I lived there then. I don't know if people outside of Florida got the word about how corrupt and tainted that election was all over Florida, but it WAS not only bad, it was horrible. It extended way beyond some dangling chads in south Florida.

Unbeknownst to most American voters, it was a hint of the horrible things to come. If we had known how horrible it could really get, we would have pressured the Democratic party and Al Gore into fighting the thing to the ends of the earth.

It is because of this administration that I have come to distrust anyone who boasts about conservatives and their activities and/or motives.

L8BloomR · 11-06-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJean

I can't say that I believe it or not. I just have a problem with the whole premise and one guy's "research".

As for Florida... interesting that you should bring up that state in particular. I lived there then. I don't know if people outside of Florida got the word about how corrupt and tainted that election was all over Florida, but it WAS not only bad, it was horrible. It extended way beyond some dangling chads in south Florida.

Unbeknownst to most American voters, it was a hint of the horrible things to come. If we had known how horrible it could really get, we would have pressured the Democratic party and Al Gore into fighting the thing to the ends of the earth.

It is because of this administration that I have come to distrust anyone who boasts about conservatives and their activities and/or motives.

That is really too bad. There has been corruption in both political parties, including in Florida. Then there is Massachusetts, New Jersey, and many other places that the Democrats have done corrupt things. (I'm from Mass., originally.) John Kennedy's election was bought, if you believe the reports from people who were there. Many, many Democrats have "won" elections from antics by powerful labor unions and the like. Neither party is immune. I became a Republican during the Carter years, not that I thought he was corrupt, just inept. I don't distrust "anyone" just because they are from another political party. Ithink it is better to try to focus on what is good, because no one person or one party is all bad. To me, Clinton was dispicable, and not because of Monica. But I still try to trust Democrats when they attempt to do the right thing, even if I don't like their methods. To distrust an entire party or everyone in it because of an administration you don't like is just sad, IMO.

BJean · 11-06-2007, 11:51 AM

Sorry L8, nothing political that has happened before in this nation holds a candle to the stuff the extreme right has pulled on us during this administration. No election in my lifetime has been as bad as the 2000 election. Yeah, I've read the history books. I wonder if you're going to feel the same way when this administration's fine works are documented, one by one.

I don't blame you for disliking Clinton. He had a very definititive political agenda. If you didn't agree with that, obviously you'd dislike him whatever his sexual proclivities. But although Republicans were outraged enough about that agenda to ride him into the ground, using his sexual weaknesses to do it, he cared about the people of this nation and he wanted to do right by this country. He did some really outstanding things for this country and much better than most of the administations before him. What he did in the White House with Monica Lewinsky was extremely weak and immoral though - I sure can't argue with that.

I don't ask you to listen to the pundits who are talking about what's going on that is undermining this country and our very freedom today. I am sure it is as distasteful to you to listen to all of that as it is for me to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh. But just use your head. Stand back and look at where this country has gone in the past 8 years - the country - not just one man. How can you possibly believe that our country is better off now than it was 8 years ago? Because you got a token tax break?

Why aren't you scared to death of the extreme right wing that has taken over the Republican party? Are you really okay with everything they espouse? Are you really okay with the direction they've taken this country in? Is it okay that they use any means available to the president and then go way beyond that to do dispicable things to prisoners? Is is really okay with you for them to have taken us into a war that has cost millions of lives and billions of dollars and depleted our military forces to the point of having to hire mercenaries to do the job in Iraq. Is it okay with you that the Blackwater people are making tons more money (that we are paying for) than our military are getting, for doing essentially the same job? How is that right? How does that in any way compare favorably to anything Clinton and his administation did?

We are told over and over that one of the biggest issues today is the flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Huh? How has that changed in the past 8 years? It's just like it was for years and years prior to now. Why all of a sudden is it something that is breaking the back of Americans?

Why all of a sudden was Saddam Hussein such a vital threat? We helped put him in place. He was playing ball just the way we asked him to for a long time. Did we have to go to war because he got too big for his britches? He'd spent years killing people, beheading them, and all the other atrocities he was famous for. Why all of a sudden was he such a huge threat to our country? Why all of a sudden did we care about Iraqi people? How in the world did we buy into the idea that we could establish a democracy of any kind in the Middle East?

Why do we care so much about what the head of Iran says right now? Why do we want to take this country into war with Iran? Because he's such a big threat with his possible WMDs? I sincerely doubt it. We're asked to believe that so that we can go in there and get rid of a guy who has the guts to go against us politically. Do we really want to lose thousands, perhaps millions of lives and possibly start another world war because of that man, who many of the people in his own country don't like either?

Why is it okay for Blackwater to become so powerful in this country that if they chose to, one day they could stage a coup and make me worship in the church of their choosing? How the heck is that any different than putting someone like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden in power? Just because of the label of Muslim versus Christian?