BioDefenseGrad
Banned
http://pewforum.org/Government/Fait...igious-Composition-of-the-112th-Congress.aspx
This actually has a breakdown of the new congress in 2011.
This actually has a breakdown of the new congress in 2011.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head
- Thread starter Kyptonite
- Start date
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
No I didn't.:1orglaugh
Ummm, the statistics you provided indicate that Christians are significantly over-represented as well.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Do you even read what you link to?
http://pewforum.org/uploadedImages/Topics/Issues/Government/makeup by party(1).png
43% of Democrats are Protestant compared to 68% of Republicans. No, I don't think the Democratic Party is anti-christian. Democrats believe the First Amendment applies to everyone, not just christians.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Ummm, the statistics you provided indicate that Christians are significantly over-represented as well.
Ummm I said EVANGELICALS are underrepresented. You have mainline protestant groups (particularly the Episcopalians, a left leaning denomination that has a relatively high percentage of democrat identification among congressman) that push it over the top.
So no, even the updated statistics I provided do not show Christians as significantly overrepresented. When you compare the percentage of Americans who are Christian with the percentage of Congressman who are Christian then NO they are not significantly over-represented, and the article confirms that.
As it's been said before, Jews and Mormons are significantly overrepresented.
Now in 2011 Episcopalians, a left-leaning mainline Protestant group who are being abandoned for Anglican factions and Roman Catholicism.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
You may not consider most of that 43% anti-Christian, but let's examine the other 57%.
Oh and of course, I read my links. Hell I've done research papers on this very topic before.
As for identification, what does that prove? Guys like Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev might be considered "White" but they definitely hate White people. Hell, many of the most vicious anti-White racists happen to be White.
Translation: you got a D- on the subject.:1orglaugh
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Translation: Hot Mega goes back on time out.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
So...for better or worse, I've read just about all thirty pages of this thread. And for the most part, the large majority of you participating regularly in it (and I know you're probably mentally excluding yourself already, but don't) are doing what most voters in the US seem to do - picking your side like a football team. Oh, you may have chosen your team by 'reason' or 'research' of the party's stances/actions/etc. But you defend and attack like you would your favorite football team. Vehemently, and without real credit due to the counterpoints made to you.
Let's review:
Now, with that said, it can be fair to say that one particular group seems to have more of *something* than the other - let's take the debate some pages back about who spews out more vitriol (was this word ever used as much before this story?): the Left or the Right? One can quantitatively say one side does more than the other - or about the same. That would require studies and evidence, not media coverage (which we all seem to agree is biased, yet still argue over which side has more bias) - instead, the argument turned basically into name-calling with each side simply throwing out examples that may or may not elude to the actual trends in any way. Just like somebody defending their favorite football team with no more reason why than 'it's just their favorite'.
Debate is entertaining. That's why I pop in from time to time. Bickering and fighting over your favorite team, well...I dunno, I got tired of that when I was twelve or thirteen.
To (attempt) to bring the thread back on topic, I'll reiterate my earlier post: I think, like most of you do, that Loughner is to blame for the shooting - but if we simply leave it there, shrug, and carry on as we have been, we're only asking for this sort of thing to happen again. He's solely to blame, but not solely responsible. The political discourse in the US is in a sad state of affairs that thrives on tensions running hot and putting cross hairs on things (only to use an example). To think that this had no effect on the events is naive; it doesn't matter what political or philosophical affiliation Loughner is for it to have an effect - it doesn't matter if he's never paid any attention to Sarah Palin to have an effect (again, as an example). The ideas are in the public regardless.
With that, it's fair to ask why crazy people are getting guns (we had a case in Portland, OR a couple years back where a very mentally ill man got himself a gun - I forget whether he himself obtained it legally or it was simply in the house - took it over to I-205 and just started shooting at cars. Hit a mother of two in the neck with her two children in the back seat. Just another example in the extreme, but these examples do seem to sprout up more commonly than they should)?
Or even better, what are we doing with our crazy people in the first place?
Let's review:
- Stating something the other 'team' has done in response to an accusation of your team is not a defense.
- Stating something that the other 'team' has done worse than something your team has done is not a defense.
- 'No', 'No it isn't', 'no they're not', etc., or or
are not defenses. - Labeling an entire demographic for the deeds of a few is not smart. Downright foolish.
Now, with that said, it can be fair to say that one particular group seems to have more of *something* than the other - let's take the debate some pages back about who spews out more vitriol (was this word ever used as much before this story?): the Left or the Right? One can quantitatively say one side does more than the other - or about the same. That would require studies and evidence, not media coverage (which we all seem to agree is biased, yet still argue over which side has more bias) - instead, the argument turned basically into name-calling with each side simply throwing out examples that may or may not elude to the actual trends in any way. Just like somebody defending their favorite football team with no more reason why than 'it's just their favorite'.
Debate is entertaining. That's why I pop in from time to time. Bickering and fighting over your favorite team, well...I dunno, I got tired of that when I was twelve or thirteen.
To (attempt) to bring the thread back on topic, I'll reiterate my earlier post: I think, like most of you do, that Loughner is to blame for the shooting - but if we simply leave it there, shrug, and carry on as we have been, we're only asking for this sort of thing to happen again. He's solely to blame, but not solely responsible. The political discourse in the US is in a sad state of affairs that thrives on tensions running hot and putting cross hairs on things (only to use an example). To think that this had no effect on the events is naive; it doesn't matter what political or philosophical affiliation Loughner is for it to have an effect - it doesn't matter if he's never paid any attention to Sarah Palin to have an effect (again, as an example). The ideas are in the public regardless.
With that, it's fair to ask why crazy people are getting guns (we had a case in Portland, OR a couple years back where a very mentally ill man got himself a gun - I forget whether he himself obtained it legally or it was simply in the house - took it over to I-205 and just started shooting at cars. Hit a mother of two in the neck with her two children in the back seat. Just another example in the extreme, but these examples do seem to sprout up more commonly than they should)?
Or even better, what are we doing with our crazy people in the first place?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I'm really beginning to think you're nothing but a troll. The "other 57%" is composed of "34% Catholic and 15% Jewish", in other words 49%. So, 43% Protestant + 49% Catholic and Jewish = 92% of Congressional Democrats practice a religion that worships the God of The Old Testament. You've "done research papers". Wow. I can't imagine what sort of academic setting that took place in.
Hey, Mega, I think a "D" is a bit high. :rofl:
I'm really beginning to think you're nothing but a troll. The "other 57%" is composed of "34% Catholic and 15% Jewish", in other words 49%. So, 43% Protestant + 49% Catholic and Jewish = 92% of Congressional Democrats practice a religion that worships the God of The Old Testament. You've "done research papers". Wow. I can't imagine what sort of academic setting that took place in.
Hey, Mega, I think a "D" is a bit high. :rofl:
Or the professor 'awarding' any grade higher than that was.:o
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
I'm really beginning to think you're nothing but a troll. The "other 57%" is composed of "34% Catholic and 15% Jewish", in other words 49%. So, 43% Protestant + 49% Catholic and Jewish = 92% of Congressional Democrats practice a religion that worships the God of The Old Testament. You've "done research papers". Wow. I can't imagine what sort of academic setting that took place in.
Hey, Mega, I think a "D" is a bit high. :rofl:
What about the other 8% and let's talk about the beliefs of those DEMOCRATS we're talking about the Democratic party here--who spew hatred against White people and Christians, or for that matter everyone who isn't "openminded" like them. What about that 15% that is Jewish and the those other Catholics and Protestants. There are 2 Muslim reps as well. We can bring up enough about one of them to start another thread.
Might I recommend parkour? As someone who practices it, I would say from your posts you would be very good at it.:2 cents:
lol
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
You're pretty good at declaring other people to be wrong, but no good at making your own arguments. Making pronouncements and then telling other people to prove or disprove them is lazy. I'm sorry if you don't like having your b.s. thrown back in your face.
Better yet, let's provide some more links and less b.s.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/in-2012-obama-may-need-a-new-coalition-20110105
Does the Democratic party have a White problem? Looks like it from this article. There's one, let's see what else we can dig up.
A previous poster said that all but 1 Senator was Christian, I provided a link showing otherwise. Then I got mocked for it, but actual new what the hell I was talking about, so xfire goes for Ad Hominems.
Let's take a look at how the Democratic party is doing with White voters.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
It's true but this topic has been discussed enough that I'll have a bit of fun really laying the hammer on him/her without expending much effort. I wouldn't waste my time with a troll if I felt I'd have to really get angry and carefully construct argument and rebuttal. He was trying to get me to write an essay so he could come back with a one-liner but I caught him early on:1orglaugh
Anyway, if anyone else wants to argument about the orientation of the Democratic party or relative influence of specific religious groups over Congress we can do that rather easily--provided the thread isn't closed.
