messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 44
   
Posts: 220/449
EXP: 610028
For next: 1261
Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 4 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #21 Posted on 10.11.04 1119.21
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1119.36 | Originally posted by Eddie Famous
Originally posted by DrOp
Because God hates homsexuals, women who have sex and are unmarried are sluts, women who have abortions are going to hell (along with the doctors who perform them) and if we all just prayted a little bit harder all of this mess would just go away.
This past election was evidently about "Family values" and not about a war or jobs or the economy (all of which suck, btw). Who knew? I mean, I had no idea that liberals were "faithless, ababy-killing, free-spending, coastal weirdos" who can't see that the "correct" (er, conserative)way out of all problems is the Bible, 21st century colonialism and hard work. Who knew?!?
What the sam hell are you talking about?
The ONLY people spewing the "election was about family values" crap are the Democrats. Every nationwide poll I've seen says the main issue of the election was about security and the Iraq war.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/prez.analysis/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/politics/main653238.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3973197.stm
No, it looks like morals was the main issue, just edging out terrorism as the primary reason people voted for Bush.
| Spaceman Spiff
Banger
Level: 99
Posts: 1731/2865
EXP: 9891168
For next: 108867
Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs
Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #22 Posted on 10.11.04 1129.43
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1131.31 | Originally posted by SirBubNorm
Ever feel like you're stuck between a rock and a hard place? This isn't about "religious" beliefs, yet what would happen when a minister gets asked to perform a gay marriage?
Wouldn't this thread become "Ministers are allowed to refuse to marry x?" with outrage on both sides?
Churches are ostensibly "private" organizations, and therefore are able to pick & choose who they want to marry. Most churches are against gay marriage, so the ministers would be well within their rights to refuse to perform a gay wedding. I don't know for sure, but I would assume a Catholic Church could refuse to marry a heterosexual couple if either one has been previously divorced.
A better analogy would be if gay marriage were legal, and a couple went to a justice of the peace to get married, and were refused on "moral grounds".
(edited by Spaceman Spiff on 10.11.04 1230) | JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 86
Posts: 1325/2159
EXP: 5915046
For next: 227085
Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL
Since last post: 1776 days
Last activity: 1773 days
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #23 Posted on 10.11.04 1140.37
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1145.13 | Originally posted by AWArulz
Guys,,
Mrs AWA is a PharmD - and I am out taking care of my Mom and my Dad (both in the Hsopital and both sleeping right now, Thank God - but when I get back into town, I am going to quiz her on this one. She's pretty strickly pro-life and all the "family Values" stuff, but I cannot IMAGINE her refusing to fill a valid prescription UNLESS she felt like there was a drug inteaction issue. She a hospital clinitologist, so it may be different.
I know one thing, she reviews each patient's records (or someone on her staff does) for each new drug added to a patient's list for interactions, because she has told me many times that Drs are not as well informed on drug interactions as she and her collegues are.
Like I said, I will ask her. She'd kind of resent the "fill the bottle" line. She doesn't even do that, she has technicians for that. The only time she actually touches drugs these days is when she mixes Chemo or nuclear drugs. Otherwise, she checks interactions and confirms the woirk of the technicians.
I assume that's the same thing with most RPHs
Speaking as someone who paid their way through school as a commercial pharmacy tech, I don't ever recall a single incident where a valid Rx was refused service for any other reason other than the Drug Interaction Indicator tripping over a red flag. And it's worth noting that the two RPHs I worked for were a devout catholic and a devout muslim. They may have interjected their opinion to me quietly behind the desk when said customer was well out of earshot, but I can't think of any incident where an outright refusal of a valid Rx happened, although the people who had Percocet Rxs "phoned in" were a near-daily slice of entertainment for all of us. But had it ever happened, I know myself well enough to know that I would have made my objection known, which I don't recall ever having to do.
And ACTUALLY, toward the tail end of my run in 96 was when they put in those electronic drug dispensers, so it was more me standing over the machine and puching in "30" than actually counting. :)
(edited by Blanket Jackson on 10.11.04 1244) | Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 88
Posts: 1130/2172
EXP: 6546194
For next: 104496
Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
| #24 Posted on 10.11.04 1234.14
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1235.20 | Originally posted by messenoir
No, it looks like morals was the main issue, just edging out terrorism as the primary reason people voted for Bush.
CNN Poll for overall voters: Moral Values 22%, Iraq 15%, terrorism 19%
*that's 34% for Iraq and security, 22% morals
CBS poll for Bush voters: Morals 35%, Terrorism 32%, Iraq 8%
*that's 40% for Iraq and security, 35% morals
CBS poll for Kerry voters: Morals 8%, Terrorism 5%, Iraq 22%
*that's 27% for Iraq and security, 8% morals
BBC poll for overall voters had the same numbers as the CNN poll
*that's 34% for Iraq and security, 22% morals
Originally posted by me earlier
Every nationwide poll I've seen says the main issue of the election was about security and the Iraq war.
Those polls actually prove my point. Thank you. | brick
Bockwurst
Level: 48
Posts: 331/535
EXP: 796766
For next: 26782
Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 19 days
| #25 Posted on 10.11.04 1429.32
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1431.52 | Originally posted by Eddie Famous
Originally posted by messenoir
No, it looks like morals was the main issue, just edging out terrorism as the primary reason people voted for Bush.
CNN Poll for overall voters: Moral Values 22%, Iraq 15%, terrorism 19%
*that's 34% for Iraq and security, 22% morals
CBS poll for Bush voters: Morals 35%, Terrorism 32%, Iraq 8%
*that's 40% for Iraq and security, 35% morals
CBS poll for Kerry voters: Morals 8%, Terrorism 5%, Iraq 22%
*that's 27% for Iraq and security, 8% morals
BBC poll for overall voters had the same numbers as the CNN poll
*that's 34% for Iraq and security, 22% morals
Originally posted by me earlier
Every nationwide poll I've seen says the main issue of the election was about security and the Iraq war.
Those polls actually prove my point. Thank you.
Wow, you planning on working spin alley anytime soon.
Originally posted by CNN
A roughly equal number of respondents called "moral values" and the economy as the 2004 election's most importance issues. Those who cited the former backed Bush overwhelmingly (79 percent, with 18 percent for Kerry); those who made the latter a priority voted for Kerry by a similar margin (80 percent, with 18 percent for Bush).
Terrorism and the war in Iraq rated as the third and fourth top issues, respectively. While the voting public evenly split on the Iraq war, those who called it a top issue were far more likely to support Kerry. Bush won handily among those who prioritized terrorism.
Voters who went with Bush placed Morals as the #1 issue. I'm not sure why thats so hard for you, their is no shame in it. They can vote for whatever reason they want.
Then you try to add in Kerry's poll #'s. Even though they have no bearring on the overall number. If you want to do that lets add in Nader's numbers too. You can't average numbers from different types of samples and expect results that have any basis in reality.
The polls show the #1 issue for Kery voters was/is the economy. The polls show the #1 issue for Bush voters was/is moral values.
| messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 44
Posts: 221/449
EXP: 610028
For next: 1261
Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO
Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 4 days
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #26 Posted on 10.11.04 1440.07
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1441.57 | | Yes, that's a pretty big spin job there. You can't just start adding numbers here and there to prove your point. Morals was the biggest single issue, and there is no denying that. The Iraq war and security are seperate issues, and should be treated as seperate issues in relation to polling. | Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 88
Posts: 1131/2172
EXP: 6546194
For next: 104496
Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL
Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
| #27 Posted on 10.11.04 1631.59
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1632.30 | | (deleted by CRZ on 10.11.04 1641) | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 205
Posts: 5342/15437
EXP: 124067159
For next: 1401717
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 4 min.
| #28 Posted on 10.11.04 1636.19
Reposted on: 10.11.11 1637.13 |
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
"Most Important Issue" - 13,660 respondents
22% Moral Values
20% Economy/Jobs
19% Terrorism
15% Iraq
8% Health Care
5% Taxes
4% Education
7%? Other/no answer? (by my math)
No margin of error listed
http://election.cbsnews.com/election2004/poll/poll_p____u_s__all_us0.shtml
"Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? (Check only one)"
No overall breakdown listed
Hey wait, I think this might be the same poll, just reported differently. Well that's not very useful
Anyway, 22% isn't a whopping majority there - more impressive to say 78% DIDN'T pick morals as top issue - and I'd still like to know what the margin of error is given the closeness of the top three (or even four) answers.
In short, using poll data to support your argument seems to suggest we've learned nothing about polls over the past month. Not that that's any great surprise.
So maybe you three could just lay out for a while...?
(edited by CRZ on 10.11.04 1643) | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | |
Pages: Prev 1 2
