Pelosi Says Her Policies Guided by the Values of Jesus

[East of Eden]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/XdqGnzIrSU

How come nobody is upset about this?

[East of Eden]

I agree completely......... that you have nothing to back this up.

That was my guess. If you don't like it show me your statistics that prove 100% of the voters against gay marriage did so because Jesus told them to.

Matter of fact, the driving force for this legislation and the paid advertisement was the Church of the LDS, the Catholic Church, and groups like the Knights of Columbus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... anizations

About 45% of out of state funding for Prop 8 came from Utah and the LDS.

Big deal, out of state funding is common in campaigns. Ever hear of George Soros?

[Slopeshoulder]

Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

Good, than you'll have no problem with Christians whose faith makes them oppose gay marriage.

Ethically I do not doubt their sincerity.
Politically and civically, I do not question thier right ot make those views known.
Theologically, my view is these Christians are closer to Taliban than to Jesus. And history (aided by the holy spirit?) will defeat them, just like it defeated the bigots who discriminated against women, blacks, jews, and immigrants in the past.

Obama is the second coming.

.....of Satan maybe.

Thus you prove my point. It's always about hate with you haters ain't it?
I retract that he's the second coming. But he's one of my top 5 people walking the earth: scary smart, hardworking, clean, sober, healthy, pragmatic, centrist, even tempered and even handed, patriotic. If this is satanic then I'm satan's bitch! Then again, I would like it if he gave your side a lot more hell.

[East of Eden]

Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

Good, than you'll have no problem with Christians whose faith makes them oppose gay marriage.

Ethically I do not doubt their sincerity.
Politically and civically, I do not question thier right ot make those views known.
Theologically, my view is these Christians are closer to Taliban than to Jesus. And history (aided by the holy spirit?) will defeat them, just like it defeated the bigots who discriminated against women, blacks, jews, and immigrants in the past.

Obama is the second coming.

.....of Satan maybe.

Thus you prove my point. It's always about hate with you haters ain't it?
I retract that he's the second coming. But he's one of my top 5 people walking the earth: scary smart, hardworking, clean, sober, healthy, pragmatic, centrist, even tempered and even handed, patriotic. If this is satanic then I'm satan's bitch! Then again, I would like it if he gave your side a lot more hell.

Obama = empty suit, slick talker, no real accomplishments, didn't run anything prior to POTUS besides his mouth, friend of terrorists, left-wing extremist. Basically stupided his way into the White House thanks to an unpopular war and economy that lucky for him tanked right before the election.

How's he doing on the economy and oil spill?

[micatala]

Obama = empty suit,

vacuous insult.

slick talker,

True enough. So was Reagan.

no real accomplishments,

Define real accomplishment. I agree he does not come in with a robust resume of significant accomplishments. Neither does Palin. Neither did Abraham Lincoln.

didn't run anything prior to POTUS besides his mouth,

another largely vacuous statement.

friend of terrorists,

This is a lie.

left-wing extremist.

Another vacuous insult and arguably false, provided any reasonable definition of the words and any reasonably objective evaluation of Obama.

Basically stupided his way into the White House thanks to an unpopular war and economy that lucky for him tanked right before the election.

"stupided" is another empty insult. I agree, the bad economy and the unpopular war helped him get elected. So did 8 years of D+ administration on the part of Bush. I agree most any democrat running a competent campaign would have won.

How's he doing on the economy and oil spill?

Good on the first, mediocre on the second. Neither were his fault in the first place.[/quote]

[East of Eden]

Obama = empty suit,

vacuous insult.

empty suit phrases / idioms An unimportant person; also, a phony. For example, Don't pay any attention to him"he's just an empty suit, or She acts as though she knows what she's doing, but she's really an empty suit. This graphic expression calls up the image of an empty suit of clothes. [c. 1970]

Granted, Obama is important due to the office he holds.

True enough. So was Reagan.

Agreed, but with substance.

Define real accomplishment.

More than being a community agitator.

I agree he does not come in with a robust resume of significant accomplishments. Neither does Palin.

Palin had significant accomplishments as gov., which is why at one point she was the most popular gov. in the US with an 80% approval rating.

This is a lie.

Wrong, see Mr. & Mrs. William Ayers.

Another vacuous insult and arguably false, provided any reasonable definition of the words and any reasonably objective evaluation of Obama.

How is someone with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate not a left wing extremist?

"stupided" is another empty insult. I agree, the bad economy and the unpopular war helped him get elected. So did 8 years of D+ administration on the part of Bush. I agree most any democrat running a competent campaign would have won.

Which will be true of any Republican who runs in 2012.

Good on the first,

You think the economy is good? He said if we didn't pass the stimulous uneployment would hit 8%, it is now 9.7%. Now I see him bragging it went down slightly, which was only due to the temporary hiring of census workers. This man has no clue how to grow the economy.

mediocre on the second. Neither were his fault in the first place.

Bush got lots of grief for Katrina that wasn't his fault. I give Obama a D- for his handling of the oil spill, the effects of which will be worse than Katrina.

[micatala]

Tell me, are their people "dying in the streets" as allegedly claimed by the democrat party? No, because the doctors of this country are bound to the hypocratic oath which is the foundation for all medical ethics, and the government subsidizes Emergency Rooms. America does not allow its citizens to "die in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Universal healthcare already existed in America before the passage of Obamcare.

That stats don't back this up. People do die for lack of health insurance. Yes, many people receive free medical care, but that does not mean everyone who needs care is getting. The suggestion that universal health care existed prior to passage of the bill this past spring is laughable.

Obamacare isn't (promoting the general welfare) it is socialized healthcare. It was a grab for more government power.

Baloney. The accusation that Obama is motivated simply to get more power for the government is unsubstantiated. You are making a false assertion about his motivation.

Tell me, why, even with a super majority dems in the house and senate was Obama faced with so much discontent in the democrat party. If socialized healthcare is so good for america, you would think that the moderate wing of the democrat party would support this instead of just the radical leftists. But you have over 30 moderates in the house, and 4 moderates in the senate who opposed this

False premise. The bill that was passed is not socialized medicine.

You have a disapproval rating of over 57%, and over 50% of Americans want this repealed. Does the government know what is best for the American people? Are these senators and representatives not their to represent our views? Is not this country based off of popular sovernity? Yet they shoved this down our throats aganist our will.

The polls I have seen do not indicate this. A small majority opposed the bill before its passage. Afterwards, a slight plurality supported it.

Secondly, I will ask if you think that polls should decide all issues. In that case, we would not have passed civil rights and would not have repealed laws banning interracial marriage. Majorities, at least in many places, opposed these as well. You seem only willing to go with the argument from popularity when it suits your views.

As a follow up on health care opinion polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... able_N.htm

From March. 49% to 40% were glad the bill was passed.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

Tracking polls from prior to the vote that show typically between 50 and 58% opposition.


Rasmussen reports on the repeal. This organization may be on the conservative side, but I grant, their numbers do back up the contention that a majority favors repeal. They are at odds from the first result cited above.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

Regarding Rasmussen, wikipedia notes:

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented on their reliability in a February 2009 article:[13][14]

The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[15] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:

Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."[16]
Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?[17]
Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?[18]
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... its always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?[19]
Some of Rasmussen polls have contained two different weights for questions, depending on the party of the statesman in the question.[20] In one example, the first question asks for a job rating for Tim Pawlenty, a Republican governor, using an approve/disapprove scale. The next question asks for the way that Al Franken, a Democratic senator, is performing his role, but uses a Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor scale. Nick Panagakis of Pollster.com has pointed out that, when using the latter scale, "approval is often reported by combining the top two and bottom two scores", including the "fair" score as a "disapproval" vote.[21]

In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussens polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[22] Near the end of the 2008 Presidential Election, progressive statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com analyzed the eight national presidential tracking polls. Silver concluded that while none were perfect, "Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."[23]

By 2010, however, Silver's view of Rasmussen had changed. In an analysis posted at FiveThirtyEight.com on April 17, 2010, Silver concluded that since the end of the 2008 election cycle, Rasmussen's "house effect" was skewing its polling numbers and that "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong." Silver also disputed Rasmussen's suggestion that difference between his results and those of other polls can be explained by Rasmussen polling only "likely voters" rather than all adults.[24]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1
Recent poll of 1500+ in CA that show 30% strongly support the new law and 22% somewhat support it. 58% say it is an important first step. The article notes more support in CA than elsewhere.


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/05 ... -by-state/
More poll results by states. Red states tend to favor repeal as do some blue states. CA and NY are among the states that do not favor repealing the law.



Americans continue to be confused, although somewhat less so, about the law.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8075.cfm

Americans remain divided on health reform, with 41 percent holding favorable views of the law, 44 percent holding unfavorable views and 14 percent undecided or unsure. Most Democrats still approve of it and most Republicans still oppose it. Political independents are more likely to tilt against, as are people who describe themselves as likely voters in the midterm elections.

The article also notes about 25% of those polled indicated their main cable news source is FOX. This network has a clearly negative attitude toward everything Obama and is known for not being truthful. We can make that a separate thread if you wish, but a number of FOX commentators, including O'Reilly, have made blatantly false or misleading statements about the bill. Is it any wonder their is a negative attitude given the influence of this network.



Bottom line, I agree the public at large still opposes by a small margin the health care law.


My opinion is that this is due partly to legitimate concerns about the cost, what I would say are legitimate differences in philosophy regarding the role of government, but also a lot of disinformation and rank dishonesty on the part of a lot of opposition politicians and media outlets.

[Goat]

Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

Good, than you'll have no problem with Christians whose faith makes them oppose gay marriage.

Ethically I do not doubt their sincerity.
Politically and civically, I do not question thier right ot make those views known.
Theologically, my view is these Christians are closer to Taliban than to Jesus. And history (aided by the holy spirit?) will defeat them, just like it defeated the bigots who discriminated against women, blacks, jews, and immigrants in the past.

Obama is the second coming.

.....of Satan maybe.

Thus you prove my point. It's always about hate with you haters ain't it?
I retract that he's the second coming. But he's one of my top 5 people walking the earth: scary smart, hardworking, clean, sober, healthy, pragmatic, centrist, even tempered and even handed, patriotic. If this is satanic then I'm satan's bitch! Then again, I would like it if he gave your side a lot more hell.

Obama = empty suit, slick talker, no real accomplishments, didn't run anything prior to POTUS besides his mouth, friend of terrorists, left-wing extremist. Basically stupided his way into the White House thanks to an unpopular war and economy that lucky for him tanked right before the election.

How's he doing on the economy and oil spill?

He is doing miracles with the economy , considering the shape it was in when he came to office. The oil spill shows that he was wrong about considering more offshore drilling, and his appointment did not properly clean corruption out of the government agency from the leftover from the BUsh admin.

Your point?

[micatala]

Obama = empty suit,

vacuous insult.

empty suit phrases / idioms An unimportant person; also, a phony. For example, Don't pay any attention to him"he's just an empty suit, or She acts as though she knows what she's doing, but she's really an empty suit. This graphic expression calls up the image of an empty suit of clothes. [c. 1970]

Granted, Obama is important due to the office he holds.

I know what the word means. As applied it is an empty and subjective evaluation.

True enough. So was Reagan.

Agreed, but with substance.

Your opinion is noted. I will note that Reagan promised to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget during his first election campaign. He accomplished the first. He selectively accomplished the second (he massively increased social security taxes), he failed miserably at the third.

Define real accomplishment.

More than being a community agitator.

Pejorative rhetoric duly noted.

I agree he does not come in with a robust resume of significant accomplishments. Neither does Palin.

Palin had significant accomplishments as gov., which is why at one point she was the most popular gov. in the US with an 80% approval rating.

I don't count popularity as an accomplishment. I don't see that Palin got a whole lot accomplished before quitting as governor to make herself into a PR phenomenon.

This is a lie.

Wrong, see Mr. & Mrs. William Ayers.

Sorry, still a lie. Obama and Ayers were at best passing acquaintances. You've bought into the right-wing media hype on this.

Another vacuous insult and arguably false, provided any reasonable definition of the words and any reasonably objective evaluation of Obama.

How is someone with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate not a left wing extremist?

What counts as liberal in the U.S. senate is a far cry from "left-wing extremist". The problem is the subjective nature of the terms you fling around.

"stupided" is another empty insult. I agree, the bad economy and the unpopular war helped him get elected. So did 8 years of D+ administration on the part of Bush. I agree most any democrat running a competent campaign would have won.

Which will be true of any Republican who runs in 2012.

We'll see. I don't think Palin could beat a brown paper bag with democrat scribbled in magic marker on it.

Good on the first,

You think the economy is good?

Here you go changing the goal posts again. You commented on what kind of job he was doing on the economy, not on the state of the economy. The economy is not great, but it is a lot better than it was 12 months ago and a lot better than we have any right to expect given the state it was in right before the election and into early 2009. Obama, and even Bush, deserve some credit for avoiding a much huger catastrophe.

He said if we didn't pass the stimulous uneployment would hit 8%, it is now 9.7%. Now I see him bragging it went down slightly, which was only due to the temporary hiring of census workers. This man has no clue how to grow the economy.

Sorry, bogus number because at the time the 8% was cited, pretty much everyone was unaware of how bad the problems were.

In fact, the economy is growing, jobs are being created, and unemployment is coming down, albeit slowly.

mediocre on the second. Neither were his fault in the first place.

Bush got lots of grief for Katrina that wasn't his fault. I give Obama a D- for his handling of the oil spill, the effects of which will be worse than Katrina.

I agree, Bush got a lot of grief for Katrina that wasn't his fault. I also agree that Obama might have been proactive on the spill. However, the difference is the federal government is or at least should be set up to deal with the aftermath of natural disasters like hurricanes because we have done it before. Katrina was worse because of the failure of the levee system which was partly the governments fault (both fed and LA) but certainly not Bush's fault.

The feds are not set up to deal directly with an oil spill, especially the magnituge of this one. Obama migh have ridden BP harder early on. However, BP is the one with the technology, not the government.

Also, it is worth pointing out that one can reasonably assert that Bush and CHeney again have culpability in this disaster by their completely lax regulation of the energy industry, their closed-door (much worse than anything Obama did on health care) development of their energy bill, and their cronyism in the MMS.


However, I fully expect Obama to suffer in popularity because of the spill. He would have probably whatever he did. People tend to judge results, not actions, and so President's get both more credit and more blame than they should for what happens on their watch, even when they take reasonable measures in the given circumstances.



At any rate, I'll leave the discussion at this point since we seem to have migrated quite far afield from the questions posed in the OP.

[East of Eden]

Tell me, are their people "dying in the streets" as allegedly claimed by the democrat party? No, because the doctors of this country are bound to the hypocratic oath which is the foundation for all medical ethics, and the government subsidizes Emergency Rooms. America does not allow its citizens to "die in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Universal healthcare already existed in America before the passage of Obamcare.

That stats don't back this up. People do die for lack of health insurance. Yes, many people receive free medical care, but that does not mean everyone who needs care is getting. The suggestion that universal health care existed prior to passage of the bill this past spring is laughable.

Obamacare isn't (promoting the general welfare) it is socialized healthcare. It was a grab for more government power.

Baloney. The accusation that Obama is motivated simply to get more power for the government is unsubstantiated. You are making a false assertion about his motivation.

Tell me, why, even with a super majority dems in the house and senate was Obama faced with so much discontent in the democrat party. If socialized healthcare is so good for america, you would think that the moderate wing of the democrat party would support this instead of just the radical leftists. But you have over 30 moderates in the house, and 4 moderates in the senate who opposed this

False premise. The bill that was passed is not socialized medicine.

You have a disapproval rating of over 57%, and over 50% of Americans want this repealed. Does the government know what is best for the American people? Are these senators and representatives not their to represent our views? Is not this country based off of popular sovernity? Yet they shoved this down our throats aganist our will.

The polls I have seen do not indicate this. A small majority opposed the bill before its passage. Afterwards, a slight plurality supported it.

Secondly, I will ask if you think that polls should decide all issues. In that case, we would not have passed civil rights and would not have repealed laws banning interracial marriage. Majorities, at least in many places, opposed these as well. You seem only willing to go with the argument from popularity when it suits your views.

As a follow up on health care opinion polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... able_N.htm

From March. 49% to 40% were glad the bill was passed.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform

Tracking polls from prior to the vote that show typically between 50 and 58% opposition.


Rasmussen reports on the repeal. This organization may be on the conservative side, but I grant, their numbers do back up the contention that a majority favors repeal. They are at odds from the first result cited above.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

Regarding Rasmussen, wikipedia notes:

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented on their reliability in a February 2009 article:[13][14]

The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[15] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:

Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."[16]
Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?[17]
Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?[18]
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... its always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?[19]
Some of Rasmussen polls have contained two different weights for questions, depending on the party of the statesman in the question.[20] In one example, the first question asks for a job rating for Tim Pawlenty, a Republican governor, using an approve/disapprove scale. The next question asks for the way that Al Franken, a Democratic senator, is performing his role, but uses a Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor scale. Nick Panagakis of Pollster.com has pointed out that, when using the latter scale, "approval is often reported by combining the top two and bottom two scores", including the "fair" score as a "disapproval" vote.[21]

In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussens polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[22] Near the end of the 2008 Presidential Election, progressive statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com analyzed the eight national presidential tracking polls. Silver concluded that while none were perfect, "Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."[23]

By 2010, however, Silver's view of Rasmussen had changed. In an analysis posted at FiveThirtyEight.com on April 17, 2010, Silver concluded that since the end of the 2008 election cycle, Rasmussen's "house effect" was skewing its polling numbers and that "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong." Silver also disputed Rasmussen's suggestion that difference between his results and those of other polls can be explained by Rasmussen polling only "likely voters" rather than all adults.[24]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1
Recent poll of 1500+ in CA that show 30% strongly support the new law and 22% somewhat support it. 58% say it is an important first step. The article notes more support in CA than elsewhere.


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/05 ... -by-state/
More poll results by states. Red states tend to favor repeal as do some blue states. CA and NY are among the states that do not favor repealing the law.



Americans continue to be confused, although somewhat less so, about the law.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8075.cfm

Americans remain divided on health reform, with 41 percent holding favorable views of the law, 44 percent holding unfavorable views and 14 percent undecided or unsure. Most Democrats still approve of it and most Republicans still oppose it. Political independents are more likely to tilt against, as are people who describe themselves as likely voters in the midterm elections.

The article also notes about 25% of those polled indicated their main cable news source is FOX. This network has a clearly negative attitude toward everything Obama and is known for not being truthful. We can make that a separate thread if you wish, but a number of FOX commentators, including O'Reilly, have made blatantly false or misleading statements about the bill. Is it any wonder their is a negative attitude given the influence of this network.



Bottom line, I agree the public at large still opposes by a small margin the health care law.


My opinion is that this is due partly to legitimate concerns about the cost, what I would say are legitimate differences in philosophy regarding the role of government, but also a lot of disinformation and rank dishonesty on the part of a lot of opposition politicians and media outlets.

Even if the public is evenly divided on Obamacare, major social legislation shouldn't be rammed through on a partisan basis, as Obama used to say. He never made a serious attempt to involve Republicans.

[East of Eden]

Your opinion is noted. I will note that Reagan promised to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget during his first election campaign. He accomplished the first. He selectively accomplished the second (he massively increased social security taxes), he failed miserably at the third.

I'll take Reagan's deficits over Obama's. Reagan WAS busy winning the cold war. That was real change.

Sorry, still a lie. Obama and Ayers were at best passing acquaintances. You've bought into the right-wing media hype on this.

It would be nice if a moderator and someone voted as a civil debator like yourself would avoid the word 'lie'.