Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 01:30:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1202
25801  General Discussion / History / Re: Rank Theodore Roosevelt on: May 08, 2005, 03:21:56 am

Wall Street conservatives approved of his limited trust busting, since breaking up "illegal" combinations was good for business. TR was strongly supported by business in 1904, despite the fact that Parker was a proven conservative.

Spitzer must be the new Teddy Roosevelt, he manages a 58%-18% approval rating amoung Republicans.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11373.xml?ReleaseID=679
25802  General Discussion / History / Re: Rank Theodore Roosevelt on: May 08, 2005, 03:14:55 am


I said federal environmentalism.

It's pretty horrible that Nevada can't pullote all of California's drinking water now.
25803  General Discussion / History / Re: Rank Theodore Roosevelt on: May 08, 2005, 03:11:38 am
5. He built the Panama Canal and instituted needed reforms, such as the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Although I don't disapprove of those two things, he also started federal environmentalism.

It's pretty horrible that people are interested in healthy drinking water now.
25804  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: old congressional district maps on: May 08, 2005, 01:39:56 am
Out of print book

http://www.isbn.nu/0029201500
25805  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is the LEAST racist part of the country? on: May 08, 2005, 01:14:49 am
Poverty rates

Similar:
Vermont
Alaska (probably unfair advantage from the oil money doled out to everyone)

Different:
Iowa
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Demographics+and+the+Economy&subcategory=People+in+Poverty&topic=Poverty+Rate+by+Race%2fEthnicity

States with highest black poverty:

1-3. Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming 52%
4. Wisconsin 47%

Highest hispanic:
1. RI 39%

Highest other:
1. ND 51%
2. SD 48%
3. NM 37%


Highest white:
1. West Virginia 21%
25806  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is the LEAST racist part of the country? on: May 08, 2005, 12:59:00 am

I don't see why different races voting differently would imply that racism exists...

Well, we want something quantatitive. Another thing you could look at is a comparison of poverty and income.
25807  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is the LEAST racist part of the country? on: May 08, 2005, 12:54:51 am
If the criteria is different races voting differently, the top racist are
1. MS (Bush won whites 85-14, Kerry won blacks 90-10) gap of 151 points
2. AL (Bush won whites 80-19, Kerry won blacks  91-6) gap of 146 points

and the least racist is
1. DC (Kerry won whites 80-19, blacks 97-3) gap of 33 points
2. VT (Kerry won whites 58-40, not many blacks) i'm guessing a gap of about 45 points
25808  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas Survivor Group Two- Round XV on: May 07, 2005, 11:42:04 pm
Angus
25809  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 15) on: May 07, 2005, 11:40:06 pm
Eisenhower

Time to get rid of the rest of the good Presidents who won landslides.
25810  General Discussion / History / Re: Russia in the world wars on: May 07, 2005, 10:32:22 pm
i have a question that i have been wondering about for some time:  why is it that the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin performed so much better against Nazi Germany, than its Tsarist predeccessor did against imperial Germany in the First World War? was it because they were better industrialized, had better leadership, the Lend-Lease Act, or something else altogether?     

Better industrialized, and its leader had more power.
25811  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bush adminstration busted in new lie about Al Qaeda on: May 07, 2005, 09:49:19 pm
Oh gee, we're not entirely sure of the hierarchy of an underground terrorist organization, operating covertly.  I'm stunned. 

(That's sarcasm.)

Maybe we shouldn't proudly announce we busted the #3 guy then?
25812  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas Survivor Group One- Round XV on: May 07, 2005, 09:48:45 pm
StatesRights
25813  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 09:45:24 pm
Again, this bill does not apply to all 501c3s, it applies to only churches. They do a lot more than just state their position.
25814  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bush adminstration busted in new lie about Al Qaeda on: May 07, 2005, 09:43:44 pm
Why do you try to lie again. The article says they got confused with someone with pratically the same name. That means they made a mistake jfraud. Once again, do you read your links?

That was pretty stupid of them if it was a mistake. Thos two candidates in the Ukrine had almost the same name, too, you know.
25815  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 09:40:29 pm

Can you please answer the question asked:  Would you support this bill, the one A18 posted, if it included 501c3s?

No, you shouldn't get a tax-write off for supporting a partisan organization. But in any case, that's not what this bill is doing, because the Republicans know that would be bad for them.
25816  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 09:32:47 pm
How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's f**cked up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.
OK, so you would support this bill if it included 501c3s?

I'd strongly oppose the version of the bill from last Congress, which would have applied to political ads. They might try to change it to the old version in commitee, so I oppose this. I also oppose churches being able to kick out people just for being Democrats.
25817  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 09:20:08 pm
How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's ed up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.
25818  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Separation of Church and State (It's a long one) on: May 07, 2005, 09:15:39 pm
What discrimination against Christians?  San Francisco elected a Catholic who talks about her faith to Congress. Do you have a g point? I'm really sick of hearing about this so-called "discrimination against Christians".  Bush Senior said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. That's discrimination, not this hypothetical stuff that you haven't mentioned.

Yeah, acutally, I do have a point!  Why is it that schools can talk about evolution all they won't, but even mention "intelligent design", heck no!  That would be religious.  Why do I hear of all these lawsuits where any mention of a god is just thrown away?  Why is it such a problem in this country to have a monument to a fundamental law code?  Why is it that plaques quoting the Bible had to be taken away from the park at the Grand Canyon?  The story is at http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=1294.  That version has a religious twist, I will warn you, but it does give a fuller story.  We are completely fine with government support of anything not religious, or even anti-religious.  That's my point.  Do you get it?

Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Intelligent design isn't even a scientific theory, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
There's nothing saying that one can't talk about non-scientific theories outside of a science class. The original pledge, as written by a clergyman, did not include "under god". Those plaques are still there. Do the Scientologists get to put up plaques too?  Every religion and cult that ever existed should get 3 plaques each at the edge of the grand Canyon.
25819  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Bush adminstration busted in new lie about Al Qaeda on: May 07, 2005, 09:10:40 pm
Quote

The Sunday Times - World

May 08, 2005

Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of `mistaken identity'

Christina Lamb and Mohammad Shehzad Islamabad

THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as "a critical victory in the war on terror". According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists' third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as "among the flotsam and jetsam" of the organisation.

Quote
Al-Libbi's arrest in Pakistan, announced last Wednesday, was described in the United States as "a major breakthrough" in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

Bush called him a "top general" and "a major facilitator and chief planner for the Al- Qaeda network". Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, said he was "a very important figure". Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBI's most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department "rewards for justice" programme.


Whoops. For some reason the Sunday Times site is down, but you can see that it's real with GOOGLE news.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/7/203513/2265
25820  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 09:03:52 pm
This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church. 
The original version would have allowed them to run ads. They say a relgious gathering, that could probably include a campaign event.

Quote
I also have no problem if Sierra Club members get together at a meeting and complain about Bush.
Then how come the law is only for religious organizations?

Quote
Churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because of what was said by members to other member in a private setting.
That church that kicked out all of the Democrats in its church should damn well lose their tax -exempt status.
Quote
I don't recall the NAACP, NOW or the Sierra Club being threatened with the same after those organizations have had heavily political meetings of their members.
"I don't recall.." is a pretty stupid reason to not have it apply to them.
25821  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections on: May 07, 2005, 08:53:28 pm
This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church.  It specifically omits any speech that extends beyond the members from this protection.
Quote
...during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service.
I have absolutely no problem with this.  I also have no problem if Sierra Club members get together at a meeting and complain about Bush.

Churches have been threatened with loss of tax-exempt status because of what was said by members to other member in a private setting.  I don't recall the NAACP, NOW or the Sierra Club being threatened with the same after those organizations have had heavily political meetings of their members.

No, it's a law that only applies to churches with 501c3s, and not other non-profits with 501c3s. The Sierra Club will be held to a higher standard than Scientology.
25822  General Discussion / History / Re: Presidential Survivor (ROUND 14) on: May 07, 2005, 08:52:20 pm
It looks like the Greatest President was too great for this island of losers.
25823  General Discussion / History / Re: Dems Only- Stickin' together on: May 07, 2005, 08:50:36 pm
The GOP under Bush is morphing into a big government, anti-states' rights organization. Therefore libertarians have no place to go (outside of the LP). It's not the ideal situation.

The Democrats have led the way for change before. If the Republicans steal their agenda and it stops working, the Dems could begin to champion Jeffersonian ideas again. The Democrats rendered the Socialist Party unnecessary in the 30's and perhaps they will do the same for the Libertarian Party in this century. I believe they are at least open to new ideas.

The GOP agenda remains completely opposite of that of the Democrats, and the Democrats are still the ones supporting bigger government, higher taxes, and more gun control.

If the Democrats become libertarian, THEN they'll be the biggest hope for libertarianism. But they're not, and they're not more libertarian, so in their present state, they're nothing but libertarianism's greatest threat.

The Libtertarian party is obviously much closer to the Democratic party than the Republican party on social issues. As for fiscal issues, if you want massive increases in federal discrentionary spending and large deficits, vote Republican. If you want fiscal responsiblity, vote Democrat.
25824  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Separation of Church and State (It's a long one) on: May 07, 2005, 08:45:41 pm
What discrimination against Christians?  San Francisco elected a Catholic who talks about her faith to Congress. Do you have a g point? I'm really sick of hearing about this so-called "discrimination against Christians".  Bush Senior said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. That's discrimination, not this hypothetical stuff that you haven't mentioned.
25825  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: If every state split EV's like Maine and Nebraska... on: May 07, 2005, 08:37:11 pm

No, it would create even more partisan gerrymandering, and it would be a huge gain for Republicans.  Why?  Because they would still get all the votes in overly-represented small states like Idaho and Wyoming, while the Democrats would have to split the EVs in California, NY, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.  Bush would have won by about an extra 20 EVs in 2000 if the votes were distributed this way.
IIRC, Bush would have won in 2000 if EVs were district-by-district with no "bonus" EVs for senators.

Even without the "overly-represented" factor (no EVs for senators), Republicans still have an edge.

Yes, gerrymandering favors the Republican party in the US, just like it favors the Labour party in the UK.
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1202


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines