Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (333178)	4/14/2007 8:06:51 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

re: You are only pretending to worship Jesus if you preach hatred and prejudice toward anyone else. What about war? Can you be pro-war and be a Christian? re: It's all about the heart. Words can easily deceive. Even those who believe what they say can deceive themselves. People have often done evil acts thinking they are serving God when in fact they are serving the devil dressed as an angel. Could the same be said about violent fundamentalist Muslims? That they are not "true" Muslims and thus you can't blame the religion?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (333178)	4/14/2007 9:35:03 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570744

Ten, why is this happening? Money Walks Republicans Are Losing Ground among the Affluent, Too by Michael Dimock, Associate Director, Pew Research Center for the People & the Press April 12, 2007 The Republican Party has traditionally garnered it strongest backing among wealthier voters. But the recent overall decline in Republican Party affiliation nationwide has taken a toll even on GOP support among affluent voters. The latest Pew surveys find Democrats pulling even with Republicans among registered voters with annual family incomes in excess of roughly $135,000 per annum. Overall, while remarkably high voter enthusiasm is undoubtedly the key factor in the Democratic Party's fundraising success in 2006 and thus far this year, the pool of potential campaign donors is also less tilted toward the GOP today than it has been in the past. Pew Research Center surveys conducted over the past 13 years reveals a stark change in the party identification among the wealthiest voters – defined here as those in the top 10% of household incomes. In 1995, the year after the Republicans took control of the House and Senate, there were nearly twice as many Republicans (46%) as Democrats (25%) among the most affluent 10% of registered voters (household incomes of approximately $84,000 or more at the time). By comparison, there are just as many Democrats (31%) as Republicans (32%) among this class of voters today (household incomes of approximately $135,000 or more). As has been the case nationwide, the shifting balance has had more to do with Republican losses than Democratic gains. Within the past two years, Republican Party identification has fallen nine percentage points among the wealthiest voters (from 41% to 32%), while Democratic identification is up just three points. This mirrors the overall pattern nationwide, which shows a sizeable decline in GOP identification, and only modest growth in Democratic Party identification. (For details, see March 22, 2007: Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats.) While much of the shifting balance among affluent voters reflects changes in the national mood, two important demographic changes among high income voters are related to the parties' fortunes. First, members of minority groups constitute a greater share of high-income voters than at any time in the past. The proportion of top-income voters who are black, Hispanic, or from another racial minority background has doubled from 10% in 1995 to 21% today, while the proportion who are white has dropped from 90% to 79%. Secondly, a greater share of top-income voters have a post-graduate education than in the past -- 35% up from 24% in 1995. In general, Americans with post-graduate training are more likely to be Democrats than those with four-year degrees or who attended but did not complete college. Despite these shifts, affluent voters remain more Republican than low-income voters. In the data Pew collected in the first quarter of 2007, Democrats have a nearly three-to-one identification advantage (48% vs. 18% Republican) among voters earning $20,000 or less, an advantage that shrinks as income increases. Among voters earning between $40,000 and $100,000 neither party has a clear advantage, while Republicans have a 34% to 27% identification edge among those in the $100-$150,000 household income range. But at the very top -- among the 7% of voters with household incomes of $150,000 or more -- Democrats once again run even (33% Democrat vs. 31% Republican). The ability of Democratic presidential candidates to out-raise the GOP field in the first quarter of 2007 was almost certainly driven by high levels of enthusiasm among Democratic voters. Throughout the past few months Pew surveys have consistently found that Democrats are tracking campaign news far more closely than are Republicans, and a March survey by CBS News and the New York Times showed that Democrats are both more satisfied with their slate of candidates and more optimistic about victory in 2008 than are Republicans. This is comparable with the high enthusiasm and optimism about the chances of victory that allowed the Democrats to compete with, and even exceed, Republican fundraising efforts in the 2006 midterm. At the same time, the GOP's fading fortunes may have weakened the Republicans' traditional advantage in having a broader pool of potential donors. This combination of factors has the potential to reshape the traditional expectations for fundraising in 2008.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (333178)	4/14/2007 9:55:11 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

"It's all about the heart. Words can easily deceive. Even those who believe what they say can deceive themselves. People have often done evil acts thinking they are serving God when in fact they are serving the devil dressed as an angel." You seem to be describing Bush, some of the Bushies and a lot of your own evangelical leaders, not to mention many evangelicals themselves..

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (333178)	4/14/2007 10:54:44 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

Study: Abstinence classes don't stop sex By KEVIN FREKING ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER Friday, April 13, 2007 · Last updated 2:37 p.m. PT WASHINGTON -- Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress. Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students - 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.... seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (333178)	4/14/2007 11:48:24 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570744

>You are only pretending to worship Jesus if you preach hatred and prejudice toward anyone else. So, like half of Christians aren't really Christians? Most of the Popes in history aren't really Christian? Perhaps Emile isn't a good Christian, but he's still a Christian. >I hope you understand why I don't believe Emile when he calls himself a "Christian." I don't care if he believes it or not. Because he's not a Christian to you. He's still a Christian. >Then how did Bill Clinton become "America's first black president"? It's a nickname. Bill Clinton isn't black. >It's all about culture anyway. Ever hear of an Oreo (black outside, white inside)? A twinkie (yellow outside, white inside)? Yes, they're ridiculous terms. -Z