My perspective as a liberal Democrat (and I may be wrong about this) is that yes, the economy sucks, but Obama isn't really to blame for it. Things were just far too bad when he took office for the economy to be fixed quickly, not to mention all the manufacturing jobs that have left and probably will never come back. And then on top of it, it looks a whole lot like the GOP did everything in its power to keep things from improving so that they'd have a perceived advantage in 2012. Now, maybe I'm right about that and maybe I'm not, but isn't it possible that a lot of younger people perceive that to be the case? Sure, the social issues are probably very important to them - but isn't it conceivable that they also don't blame Obama for the poor economy and think that a Romney presidency would be even worse for them than the status quo?
Actually, I got that last it the wrong way around. What I meant to say is that god clearly DID mean for the woman to be raped because he's.... well... y'know, god He's omniscient, omnipotent and the other one.... omnipresent? Whatever! You know what I mean. Dinner's ready and the footies on ... figure it out yourselves fellas
First, I do not agree with Mourdock's real views on the topic and his quote is incredibly stupid. That said, here's his full quote: "The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen." It's pretty clear (to me anyway) that in his own inept sort of way, Mourdock is talking about the creation of the life, not that god wants women raped. The intended focus is on the life, not on the rape. Mourdock would have been best served, of course, by just shutting up but if he absolutely had to say something, he should have gone with something like this: "Rape is horrible but even in the case of rape, the fact that a life was created is more important than the circumstances in which it happened and god does not want us to punish the unborn life with death just because of those circumstances." Mourdock's problem from a communications standpoint is that he made a rhetorical tautology that his opponents were quick to exploit. Again, I don't agree with Mourdock and I'm quite happy he lost but whether or not you agree with Mourdock's actual position, changing what Mourdock really meant to "Mourdock thinks god wants women raped and therefore Mourdock wants women raped" is a real stretch. Then again, he was stupid enough to express himself so poorly...
And that makes them different from anyone else exactly how? It's not just a wingnut problem. As Marx famously said "I am not a marxist".
Yep, they sure do. At the same time, that's not what Mourdock meant just like Obama didn't mean to deny the private sector any meaningful role in the economy with "you did not build that". I didn't like it when the Reeps took Obama's quote out of context and made it the centerpiece of their whole convention and I won't then turn around and do that to Mourdock. There's enough about Mourdock for me to disagree with as it is without taking his one quote out of context.
Well, the irony is that they are "Pro life" because of religion when in the Old Testament, God was anything but "Pro life..."
Actually, the better irony is that they're "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" at the same time. Go figure...
Makes sense when you consider their cosmology is based partially around the dichotomy between the innocent and the fallen. Murderers and such are fallen and thus no longer deserving of life, while it doesn't get any more innocent than a fetus (even live children can't compete with that).
That pretty much everyone just goes and does what they want to do and then twists and deforms whatever belief system they claim to espouse so that, oddly enough, it appears to agree with whatever it is they wanted to do in the first place. Let me ask Mr. Colbert to provide an example: Americans have (surprise, surprise!) overwhelmingly opted for the former.
Question for you with two scenarios: 1) Combined U.S. government spending on the poor is $100 billion, combined charitable giving on charities that serve the poor is $10 billion. 2) Combined U.S. government spending on the poor is $1 billion, combined charitable giving on charities that serve the poor is $200 billion. Which scenarios are examples of "the nation" helping the poor?
Yes, exactly. I actually defended this guy because of the way his words were being twisted, though I'm not sorry he lost. Leaving rape aside, the misogynists in the party were out in force this cycle. Rush with his constant slut-shaming and that congressional panel on contraception at which no one with a vagina was allowed to speak and 100 other examples set a very troubling tone for any woman who paid attention. See, abortion is one thing but there emerged a sense that the Republicans would ban - or limit - contracepton, too. Rush talked about it like only slutty young women use it when it's really something most sexually active married women use, too. We know that the Catholics forbid it (like that really stops anyone) and I've heard evangelicals talk about it like it's a bad, bad thing. The Duggars and their Quiverful movement leap to mind. Romney didn't help himself by blathering about "binders full of women" and claiming to understand that his female employees couldn't work long hours because they had to rush home to fix dinner for their families. MassRef, while it might be true that the real Romney isn't a sexist pig stuck in the 1950's, he did his level best to give people the impression that he was. To sum up, the party has a huge tone problem when it comes to women. I understand that you need a bunch of the stupid old neanderthals to go ahead and retire or die but, if Paul Ryan is any example, I'm not optimistic that the younger generation of Reeps is going to be any better. MassRef, maybe Romney isn't an out-of-touch rich white guy but he did very little to demonstrate otherwise and his party did nothing but hurt him. Anyway, thank you for thoughtful remarks. You give me hope that one day we can have a viable, reality-based Republican party because this country badly needs one.
I'll let Jesus get this one: Jesus sat down near the collection box in the Temple and watched as the crowds dropped in their money. Many rich people put in large amounts. Then a poor widow came and dropped in two small coins. Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on.”
Talk about painting with a broad brush. My point is exactly what Colbert said. True Christianity is loving thy neighbor and the poor, serving without condition and belief in Jesus and his promises. What they have done is perverted the definition of a "Christian" then paraded about with the title having onlookers who see their hypocrisy use it as a referendum about Christianity, when it is only a referendum about how worthless these people truly can be. I disagree heavily with your notion that everyone perverts/deforms their belief system.
Maybe. But we were looking at the precinct level. In hindsight, based on how turnout looked nationally once the dust was settled, it's easy to say that the final margin in Cuyahoga was expected. But going into the night and as it progressed, based on what the vote goals were, there was plenty of left in Hamilton County to offset what might come out of Cuyahoga. If, for example, Romney ran slightly better in some Hamilton precincts than McCain had and if turnout wasn't through the roof in certain Cuyahoga precincts, all of a sudden Ohio is razor thin. When you couple that possibility with the fact that, on-screen, there were literally more Romney votes in at the time Ohio was called, I just think an abundance of caution dictates you wait the 30-60 minutes until you see Obama has an insurmountable lead. The networks no doubt made an educated guess and they were supremely confident, but it was definitely a stretch to say they should have been certain. As for Florida, I think the hesitation was just about getting bit in the ass over the same state again. Florida could have been called and I think it probably should have been called. My main point here on this whole issue, though, was that Rove was getting inundated and almost berated from inside Ohio--it wasn't a case of him just not accepting reality, as is being portrayed now. And it's only because the networks acted a little quicker than anyone would have liked. It's not like Romney folks in Ohio were disputing the call an hour later. It's all academic, but I'd rather have networks be cautious about this sort of stuff going forward.
Well, for me, that was the problem as well. It just showed how stupid he was and that he was an embarrassment as a statewide nominee. But for low-information voters, all they knew about "that Akin guy" was that he was defending rape or something of the sort. He said something that could be spun by the political opposition into the "war on women" theme. And I don't say that with any righteous indignation--the Republican party would have and has done similar stuff with comments from Democrats. But let's not pretend that Democrats didn't try to milk this for all it was worth. After all, the only person of any consequence (at least in my book) who didn't call on Akin to step aside was Claire McCaskill. Democrats realized they had found a winner when he put his foot in his mouth and it wasn't just because he said something stupid. It was because he said something that could be used to amplify an argument they were trying to make.
Conceivable, of course. I'm not arguing that the youth vote would suddenly become 100% Republican if social issues were neutralized. But there would be a real debate and battle for those voters. Some would be predisposed to having the beliefs you have. Some would be predisposed to blaming the current President. But many would be open to arguments on both sides. And I think that you have a lot of youth voters who are shut off from hearing those arguments right now because the Republican position on gay marriage makes the party a complete nonstarter for them.
The problem is that you've just moved the goalposts by introducing the word "true". If being a "true" Christian is that you live by exactly what Jesus is quoted in the NT as saying (ignoring for the moment a few of the inter-Gospel differences), then my counter is that "true Christians" are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.
And, after everything I've said about the youth vote, here comes word from WaPo exit polls that Romney-Ryan won the 18-29 white vote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...day-exit-poll-highlights-cellphones-and-more/ So maybe I'm over-doing my analysis in the short-to-intermediate term. I still think it eventually will hold in the long term.
So #2 then. Ok, I would completely agree. The problem then with your statement is that Republicans care about the poor less than Democrats. Is there a known significant difference in the amount they donate "to the poor"? If not, how can you say that?