|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 137 responses total. |
khamsun
|
|
response 75 of 137:
| 
Feb 24 13:31 UTC 2006 |
Re #74:
Kennedy -> irish -> catholic
I've looked up religious background of US presidents
(http://www.heptune.com/preslist.html#religions) and it seems Kennedy is
the only one catholic.I find it surprising because on the other hand the
massive irish immigation is famous, and it's said big cities like New
York and Chicago had/have an important irish population.
Then Poles and Lithuanians (but not Estonians and Latvians) are
catholics.Germans too, if they originate from the south and much of the
Rhine area.I feel like the german+irish+polish population must have
outnumbered the oldest dutch+english.
Is there an ethnical/cultural/social profiling in the political game,
which keeps the highest circles of power in the hand of a
anglo-protestant (or anglo-dutch protestant??) lineage?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 76 of 137:
|
Feb 24 15:34 UTC 2006 |
Ya think?
|
keesan
|
|
response 77 of 137:
|
Feb 24 15:59 UTC 2006 |
So how did the Supreme Court come to have a Catholic majority?
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 137:
|
Feb 24 16:26 UTC 2006 |
re #75
Is there an ethnical/cultural/social profiling in the political game,
which keeps the highest circles of power in the hand of a
anglo-protestant (or anglo-dutch protestant??) lineage?
Yep.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 79 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:00 UTC 2006 |
Re #77:
>the Supreme Court come to have a Catholic majority?
interesting, I didn't know.
If what I know is right, US supreme court is made of members nominated
by the president + senate approval? So the beginning of a shift?
Re #78:
so it's a really strong contrast.A very diverse nation (ethnies,
backgrounds, etc) which is a heaven of free speech, and a government
from the shadows of the past.
|
tod
|
|
response 80 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:07 UTC 2006 |
re #79
Appointees come from the elected leader. Too often, the appointees are not
assigned due to professional skill and merit but rather for..
|
happyboy
|
|
response 81 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:49 UTC 2006 |
campaign work and corporate donations!!!
what do i win tod plesco?!
|
khamsun
|
|
response 82 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Re #80:
do you think perhaps it's the first time in the history of your great
nation that a banana-republic government of mafiosi is leading?
|
tod
|
|
response 83 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:51 UTC 2006 |
Don't insult mafiosi like that.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 84 of 137:
|
Feb 24 18:53 UTC 2006 |
re #77:
> So how did the Supreme Court come to have a Catholic majority?
Some commentators have observed that by nominating a Catholic
Supreme Court Justice a president who wants to place an abortion
opponent on the court can short-circuit a fair amount of
discussion over the issue during confirmation, as attacking a
nominee's personal religious beliefs would almost certainly provoke
a backlash in favor of the nominee. It's quite possible, therefore,
that Roberts and Alito were selected (in part) *because* they were
Catholic, not despite.
re #75:
Interestingly, in the last presidential election John Kerry's Catholicism
was used against him but in an almost diametrically opposite way to the
way the issue was used when Kennedy ran for office. By contrast, Kerry's
problem was being perceived as not Catholic *enough* -- his pro-choice
stance was highlighted as proof by some that he wasn't "a good Catholic"
and conservative figures within the Church came out strongly against him,
with many bishops throughout the country announcing that they would refuse
him Communion. His opponents also managed to spread the perception that
Kerry's religious beliefs are insincere (I've got no idea what the man's
private beliefs are but I have trouble imagining anyone easier to paint
as "insincere" on virtually any topic..) and that cost him greatly with
strongly religious voters. It was a neat trick for the Bush campaign to
play, actually, considering that their loudly-proclaimed "born again"
candidate never attends church services and seems (in my opinion, at least)
to act frequently in a spirit that's diametrically opposed to the teachings
of Christ.
|
gull
|
|
response 85 of 137:
|
Feb 27 06:29 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:84: Yes, I found that interesting, too. Gov. Granholm has also
taken criticism for being insufficiently Catholic. For a while
Catholics were picketing her house calling for her excommunication.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:07 UTC 2006 |
I think that if Granholm was a man she would not be as unpopular. Female
politicians tend to get unpopular a lot faster. Hillary Clinton always has
higher negatives than her husband. Some people are still distinctly
uncomfortable with females in power.
|
edina
|
|
response 87 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:09 UTC 2006 |
Someday, we're going to find out that Richard is a woman.
|
tod
|
|
response 88 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:15 UTC 2006 |
re #87
There are several on Grex and I don't blame them for flying below radar.
|
edina
|
|
response 89 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:18 UTC 2006 |
Hey, I say it loud: "I've got ovaries and am proud!"
|
richard
|
|
response 90 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:40 UTC 2006 |
no Im just a guy who's a feminist, in contrast to some of the women on here
who appear to be "female male chauvinists" in some cases.
do you why some people think hillary clinton would lose if she ran for
president in 2008? Because they think there are a number of females who won't
vote for a female president. Some women want a man in charge.
,
|
edina
|
|
response 91 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:46 UTC 2006 |
I never said I'm a feminist - nor am I a male chauvinist - I tend to be an
equalist.
I think HRC would lose (and it chagrins me to say it, as I really like her
and will vote for her) because she has left a bad taste in many mouths.
People dont' like her for being so outspoken about issues like health care,
yet the same fault her traditional values of sticking by her husband. I have
always felt she walks a very fine line.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:48 UTC 2006 |
I dont want Hillary nor Romney in 2008.
|
edina
|
|
response 93 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Well then, who do you want in 2008. Seriously.
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:51 UTC 2006 |
re #91 there's something wrong with being outspoken about health care?
sheesh...
./
|
nharmon
|
|
response 95 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Re 93: Bill Richardson.
|
tod
|
|
response 96 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:56 UTC 2006 |
re #93
Right now, Mark Warner looks like a safe gamble.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 97 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:57 UTC 2006 |
Tom and Ray Maliazzi, better known as Click and Clack the Tappet Brothers.
|
edina
|
|
response 98 of 137:
|
Feb 28 18:57 UTC 2006 |
No Richard, there is nothing wrong with it. At least in my eyes, there isn't.
Nor is staying with your husband for whatever reasons.
It's kind of a shame that Laura Bush returned to the more traditional role
in the White House. It's like she set back Hillary's progress.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 99 of 137:
|
Feb 28 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Nothing shameful about it. Not everyone wants to be a politician or be
in the public eye.
|