question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 elections


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Flumpy » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:55 am

Mike67 wrote:Marriage is a sacrament instituted by God between a Man and a Woman.


No it's not. Marriage is a contract that legally has nothing to do with God at all.

You can choose for the service to take place in a church but it's just as valid if it takes place in registry office or a hot air balloon. God doesn't come into it.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mike67 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:10 am

Mennisco wrote:
Mike67 wrote:
Mennisco wrote:Go deeper, Mike, and may God bless you on your journey of understanding.

What???

Mike67 wrote:Why is this so hard to understand?

You've got me wondering the same thing.
Mike67 wrote:Economics, pollution, crime, matters nothing when we continue to stand idly by and allow babies to be killed en mass by the millions through abortion. If we as a society cannot muster up the courage to defend these littlest ones, how can we possibly care about starving people in Africa.


You are positing a hierarchy of evils, and trying to make any response to those ills subordinate to YOUR arbitrarily selected greatest evil, dependent upon response to abortion. You are implying, no rather, demanding, that we do nothing about other suffering until your PET PROJECT is completed, to YOUR satisfaction. You are predicating your own happiness on an outcome which you insist on controlling, cannot control, and have not the humility, grace, or wisdom to ask God that His Will, Not Yours, Be Done. I hardly think Jesus wants us to walk around wasting our lives unhappy because things are not exactly as we wish. How else can you help someone, right next door or down the street from you, and make a difference in their lives, and get back some joy in the process - and how much is your obsessing over this issue preventing you from doing that?

If you cannot humble yourself enough to open your mind to this truth, you will carry on your merry way, cheating yourself and others out of a better life.

Amen.


I'm saying that if the human race cannot understand that the killing of their own babies is wrong, these other evils will continue to multiply.
Mike67
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Comeback trail

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:06 am

Daisy wrote:
Mike67 wrote:Gay marriage? There is not and nor can there ever be any such thing.


There is, just not in a church. Not everyone wants to get married in a church. Atheists marry, or are the church against that too?


Unless the church is in Canada. Marriage takes place regularly at the church I attend, and several others, our pastor received the Order of Canada in February, and the recent California Supreme Court decision was based on a submission by Troy Perry, who was married in Toronto:

http://www.revtroyperry.org/20080515PressRelease.htm
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Daisy » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:11 am

Mennisco wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Mike67 wrote:Gay marriage? There is not and nor can there ever be any such thing.


There is, just not in a church. Not everyone wants to get married in a church. Atheists marry, or are the church against that too?


Unless the church is in Canada. Marriage takes place regularly at the church I attend, and several others, our pastor received the Order of Canada in February, and the recent California Supreme Court decision was based on a submission by Troy Perry, who was married in Toronto:

http://www.revtroyperry.org/20080515PressRelease.htm


Good, point, I should clarify I was being parochial and referring to churches in the US. I still don't understand why some churches feel they have a monopoly on marriage. Arguments from the Bible seem very strawman-like with regard to this topic.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:11 am

Mike67 wrote:
I'm saying that if the human race cannot understand that the killing of their own babies is wrong, these other evils will continue to multiply.


Reverence for the sanctity of life should pervade every facet of society. When we respect every one of the weakest, and do as Christ did by speaking up for all of them, a larger and more powerful example of authentic love will have a better chance of galvanizing more people to joint action. If special interest groups, across the board, only care about their own agendas [be it homophobic violence, abortion, poverty in some areas but not others, etc], they will continue fighting for attention. Each group appears hypocritical when they seem to care only for their own agendas.
Last edited by Mennisco on Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:16 am

Cooter Brown wrote:Read somewhere that the oldest version of biblical text that exists (Greek? I can't remember) refers to God as "Mother". Then somewhere it later translations it changed to "Father".


These are only terms to which any spiritual being having a human experience must resort. God has characteristics of both "male" and "female", in spirit. Spirit is not limited by seeing itself in a gendered body.

There is discussion around these issues:

http://www.pistissophia.org/The_Holy_Sp ... pirit.html


"Behind the meaning of the Holy Spirit for Christianity there lie concepts of the Old Testament which form the background for the mission of Our Lord and the teachings of the apostles. "Spirit" in the writings of the Old Testament is not a person or a definable object or substance. It is a mode of describing how the Holy God is active in the world which He created and especially in persons in whom his purpose is fulfilled.(4)"

http://bahai-library.com/bsr/bsr04/43_a ... spirit.htm
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby cullman » Mon Oct 27, 2008 4:50 pm

Mellow Johnny wrote:Anyone who blames people who voted for Nader as the cause for Bush being elected are way off base. Why don't you blame the people who voted for Bush?

The last 8 years were awful but blaming anyone and everyone for those problems is out of line.

I can see why this forum is locked the other 364 days of the year as many of you know a heckuva lot more about track and field than you do about how our election process works. Maybe some of you should take my high school social studies classes...

Hi MJ, the masses are restless so it's pitch fork and torch time!

Hopefully you teach something about the Constitution as well as the Impeachment process. The mechanisms are there to keep President and the Veep in line but so far haven't been used by the "invertabrate" Speaker of the House according to Reagan's former associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, who is considered an expert on Constitutional law.

c(anuck)man
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby mump boy » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:01 pm

Mike67 wrote:. If we as a society cannot muster up the courage to defend these littlest ones, how can we possibly care about starving people in Africa.


the fact that you can get all worked up about the 'killing' of babies that are yet to be born but have no compation for starving people in africa who are actually alive and suffering, says an awful lot about the kind of christian you are. i have no religious belief at all but i can tell you that your kind of christianity is not one that Jesus would have supported.#

evangelical christian republicans believe only they have the bible on their side yet i find it bizaar how people pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to acknowledge.

it's not christian to have an abortion if you've been raped but it's perfectly ok to kill thousands of civilians in far of land because you don't their leaders and want to get your hands on their natural resources

how can you be a chrsitian yet be complain of high taxes when millions of people in your own country don't have sufficient health care ?? i thought it was as easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to get into heaven !!

completely obsessed with what other people get up to in their private lives yet it should only be those without sin that cast the first stone

hypocrites the lot of you
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:09 pm

mump boy wrote:
Mike67 wrote:. If we as a society cannot muster up the courage to defend these littlest ones, how can we possibly care about starving people in Africa.


the fact that you can get all worked up about the 'killing' of babies that are yet to be born but have no compation for starving people in africa who are actually alive and suffering, says an awful lot about the kind of christian you are.


Mump, thats not what he said. You are being completely unfair.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:33 pm

mump boy wrote:says an awful lot about the kind of christian you are. i have no religious belief at all but i can tell you that your kind of christianity is not one that Jesus would have supported.#

it's not christian to have an abortion if you've been raped but it's perfectly ok to kill thousands of civilians in far of land because you don't their leaders and want to get your hands on their natural resources

how can you be a chrsitian yet be complain of high taxes when millions of people in your own country don't have sufficient health care ??

hypocrites the lot of you


mump, for someone who professes no faith, you seem to think you know a lot about faith. Telling others what 'Christian' is or is not, when you yourself have no knowledge of it (and you really can't understand what it means to be a Christian unless you are one, just as White Supremists can't know what it must be like to be 'black' (or vice versa, for that matter).

Hypocrisy is pandemic.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:48 pm

I did not even know this forum was on here and I am glad it is not full time. I suppose it is cathartic to have a place to sound off but It cannot help slop over onto the other forums.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:10 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:says an awful lot about the kind of christian you are. i have no religious belief at all but i can tell you that your kind of christianity is not one that Jesus would have supported.#

it's not christian to have an abortion if you've been raped but it's perfectly ok to kill thousands of civilians in far of land because you don't their leaders and want to get your hands on their natural resources

how can you be a chrsitian yet be complain of high taxes when millions of people in your own country don't have sufficient health care ??

hypocrites the lot of you


mump, for someone who professes no faith, you seem to think you know a lot about faith. Telling others what 'Christian' is or is not, when you yourself have no knowledge of it (and you really can't understand what it means to be a Christian unless you are one, just as White Supremists can't know what it must be like to be 'black' (or vice versa, for that matter).

Hypocrisy is pandemic.


all i know is what was force fed me at school if i am incorrect in any of my statements then feel free to correct me. the point i was making is that it is very concenient to just pick and choose which bits of religion you believe to suit your own narrow minded point of view.

if anyone feels it's ok to prioritise abortion over starving people and suggests that i should not have the same equality as other people, deserves to be pulled up on it. i may not know my bible as thouroughly as others but i know predjudice when i see it
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:26 am

mump boy wrote:all i know is what was force fed me at school if i am incorrect in any of my statements then feel free to correct me. the point i was making is that it is very concenient to just pick and choose which bits of religion you believe to suit your own narrow minded point of view.

As I say, hypocrisy is pandemic. We all talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, high-minded altruism often falls prey to selfish desires.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 5:40 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:all i know is what was force fed me at school if i am incorrect in any of my statements then feel free to correct me. the point i was making is that it is very concenient to just pick and choose which bits of religion you believe to suit your own narrow minded point of view.

As I say, hypocrisy is pandemic. We all talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, high-minded altruism often falls prey to selfish desires.


true but i don't have the arrogance to presume to tell others how to live their lives and don't around trying to enforce my beliefs on others. if you do that then you should at least live up to your own standards and not just pick and chose those that suit you. i don't have religious beliefs but i do believe what people do in their private lives is their own business and as long as they don't hurt others it is not my place to comment or judge. if certain people spent more time worrying about their own behaviour and let others get on with their own lives without trying to encourage intolerance and hate the world would be a better and may i say more christian place
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:23 am

mump boy wrote: i don't have the arrogance to presume to tell others how to live their lives


But I think that IS what you were trying to do. You were telling Christians that they weren't Christian, and they should stop being hypocritical and CHANGE their ways. That is telling people how to live their lives. I am not criticizing you; I think we ALL do that - tell others how to live their lives. I wish the Libertarians were right and we should all just mind our own business and 'live and let live'. The problem is, of course, there really are bad people out there, trying to do others harm, and we can't just let them do whatever they wish.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:40 am

Marlow wrote: The problem is, of course, there really are bad people out there, trying to do others harm, and we can't just let them do whatever they wish.


The evil doers?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:51 am

SQUACKEE wrote:The evil doers?

Y'know - those Illuminati dudes.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:02 am

Mump, re-read your posts. You are talking in circles, doing exactly what you condemn others for, saying you do not judge while judging, espousing beliefs about something in which you do not believe, criticizing others priorites while declaring your own.
You are welcome to your beliefs. Just allow others theirs without carping.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:09 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote: i don't have the arrogance to presume to tell others how to live their lives


But I think that IS what you were trying to do. You were telling Christians that they weren't Christian, and they should stop being hypocritical and CHANGE their ways. That is telling people how to live their lives. I am not criticizing you; I think we ALL do that - tell others how to live their lives. I wish the Libertarians were right and we should all just mind our own business and 'live and let live'. The problem is, of course, there really are bad people out there, trying to do others harm, and we can't just let them do whatever they wish.


True but my sympathies are with mump boy, if i may be so bold, 5000 years ago some people who would never know mump would label him a sinner. Imagine it was you, Marlow who they labeled sick? Would you be so understanding?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:14 am

SQUACKEE wrote:True but my sympathies are with mump boy, if i may be so bold, 5000 years ago some people who would never know mump would label him a sinner. Imagine it was you, Marlow who they labeled sick? Would you be so understanding?

You lost me. Who is labeling whom sick? (mump was labeling certain Christians sick) Why do you assume I am NOT sick? :twisted: Have I NOT been castigated here on these fora MANY times??!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 28, 2008 8:28 am

kuha wrote:
tandfman wrote:
Mellow Johnny wrote:I voted Nadar and don't regret it.

It was the people who voted for Nader who elected W. If you don't regret that . . . .


Exactly. There may well be real-world consequences to "symbolic" acts.

As part of my own symbolic effort, whenever I write the last name of that formerly-respected, but now pathetically delusional and fundamentally destructive figure, I spell it "Nadir."


Agreed. After 2000 I felt like going out and buying a Corvair.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:02 am

I guess I came in in the middle of this movie. I had not read the initiating posts or early responses, which explains my puzzlement about the disparity of votes for McCain or Obama on another thread.

Assuming this is really a Free Speech Board, after months of being subjected to thinly veiled biased and insulting posts, I welcome the opportunity to un-bite my tounge There is nothing veiled about my position.

At the risk of completely alienating the apparent majority of those inspired to voice their opinion here and with no apparent reason or benefit for doing so, I am not repentant that I proudly voted for George W. Bush twice and would do so again given the choices we had and have.

I am not enthused about McCain. In fact, about the only points on which I agree with him are the Iraq war, tax reduction and his belated concession to the necessity to increase domestic drilling, a subject on which both candidates are woefully ignorant. He is wishy-washy on immigration and illegal aliens. His nomination was influenced by the MSM because he was perceived as the weakest candidate with a chance to be nominated. They were right but his sustained fight from out-of-it to the nomination demonstrates his resolve and may well be replicated in this election

In the strength of character category, McCain wins hands down. His survival of horrendous captivity as a POW while refusing early favored repatriation and his frequently demonstrated determination to stick to his convictions, however flawed they may be in the opinion of his party and peers, speak to his grit.

I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts..

Most disturbing about Obama is his undisguised socialism. Apparently, he has concluded there are more have-nots willing to share the wealth of the achievers than there are achievers. He is apparently ignorant of or chooses to ignore economic history that raising taxes is precisely the wrong thing to do when on the brink of recession. His "reduce taxes for 95% of taxpayers" disguises the fact the 40% of the 95% do not pay taxes now. It is simply a "spread the wealth" ploy. He seems to ignore the fact that if you penalize and destroy the very people who create employment, there will be an inevitable reduction in jobs and consequently in both corporate and individual taxes.

Race is not a factor with me. and does not influence my opinion. I am a minority myself. Obama, however, repeatedly attempts to interject race as an issue, proclaiming any dissension with his policies as racist. Admittedly, there will be people who vote against him because of his race but I suspect there are far more who will vote for him solely because of his race.

Someone once said that all politics is personal. I do not intend to insult or denigrate anyones opinion. If your heredity, environment, sentiment and circumstances lead you to a different appraisal of the same set of issues and consequences, so be it.

History is littered with failed Socialist/Marxist experiments. Pray that our nations does not join them.





.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:07 am

lonewolf wrote:I guess I came in in the middle of this movie. I had not read the initiating posts or early responses, which explains my puzzlement about the disparity of votes for McCain or Obama on another thread.

Assuming this is really a Free Speech Board, after months of being subjected to thinly veiled biased and insulting posts, I welcome the opportunity to un-bite my tounge There is nothing veiled about my position.

At the risk of completely alienating the apparent majority of those inspired to voice their opinion here and with no apparent reason or benefit for doing so, I am not repentant that I proudly voted for George W. Bush twice and would do so again given the choices we had and have.

I am not enthused about McCain. In fact, about the only points on which I agree with him are the Iraq war, tax reduction and his belated concession to the necessity to increase domestic drilling, a subject on which both candidates are woefully ignorant. He is wishy-washy on immigration and illegal aliens. His nomination was influenced by the MSM because he was perceived as the weakest candidate with a chance to be nominated. They were right but his sustained fight from out-of-it to the nomination demonstrates his resolve and may well be replicated in this election

In the strength of character category, McCain wins hands down. His survival of horrendous captivity as a POW while refusing early favored repatriation and his frequently demonstrated determination to stick to his convictions, however flawed they may be in the opinion of his party and peers, speak to his grit.

I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts..

Most disturbing about Obama is his undisguised socialism. Apparently, he has concluded there are more have-nots willing to share the wealth of the achievers than there are achievers. He is apparently ignorant of or chooses to ignore economic history that raising taxes is precisely the wrong thing to do when on the brink of recession. His "reduce taxes for 95% of taxpayers" disguises the fact the 40% of the 95% do not pay taxes now. It is simply a "spread the wealth" ploy. He seems to ignore the fact that if you penalize and destroy the very people who create employment, there will be an inevitable reduction in jobs and consequently in both corporate and individual taxes.

Race is not a factor with me. and does not influence my opinion. I am a minority myself. Obama, however, repeatedly attempts to interject race as an issue, proclaiming any dissension with his policies as racist. Admittedly, there will be people who vote against him because of his race but I suspect there are far more who will vote for him solely because of his race.

Someone once said that all politics is personal. I do not intend to insult or denigrate anyones opinion. If your heredity, environment, sentiment and circumstances lead you to a different appraisal of the same set of issues and consequences, so be it.

History is littered with failed Socialist/Marxist experiments. Pray that our nations does not join them.
.


Thanks for the post. This is a good summary of all the Rush, Fox and other wingnut talking points.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:15 am

Conor Dary wrote:Thanks for the post. This is a good summary of all the Rush, Fox and other wingnut talking points.


Ah, and theres the rub. You dismiss them as "wingnut talking points" without disproving, or even denying their validity.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:24 am

lonewolf wrote:I don't know how anyone can ignore Obama's past and continued consort with domestic terrorists, felons and anti-American racists and his blatant denial of documented facts.

Who are the felons and racists that you are referring to and what facts has he denied? :?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:29 am

lonewolf wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Thanks for the post. This is a good summary of all the Rush, Fox and other wingnut talking points.


Ah, and theres the rub. You dismiss them as "wingnut talking points" without disproving, or even denying their validity.


I could, which they all have been many times, but then they would just be recycled as next week's wingnut talking points. Just as after it was pointed out repeatedly that Sarah Palin actually was for the Bridge-to-nowhere, before she was against, Palin kept on repeating that she really was against all along.

History has a way of repeating itself with wingnuts. Before Obama it was the Clinton who were their obsession, with their endless silly accusations.
The problem is they only listen to themselves or like minded individuals.

Image
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:03 am

lonewolf wrote:At the risk of completely alienating the apparent majority of those inspired to voice their opinion here and with no apparent reason or benefit for doing so, I am not repentant that I proudly voted for George W. Bush twice and would do so again given the choices we had and have.

Considering how well things have turned out on the Bush watch I find it hard to fathom anyone as seemingly rational as you saying that you would want four more years of the same under any circumstances, including your issues with the two major candidates at hand.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby mump boy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:14 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote: i don't have the arrogance to presume to tell others how to live their lives


But I think that IS what you were trying to do. You were telling Christians that they weren't Christian, and they should stop being hypocritical and CHANGE their ways. That is telling people how to live their lives. I am not criticizing you; I think we ALL do that - tell others how to live their lives. I wish the Libertarians were right and we should all just mind our own business and 'live and let live'. The problem is, of course, there really are bad people out there, trying to do others harm, and we can't just let them do whatever they wish.


i did no such thing as i said i have no interest in what others get up to as long is it doesn't effect other people. when your opinions effect how other people are able to live, lead to hatred, violence and persecution then i certainly will critisize you.

i would obviously have no problem critisizing 'really are bad people out there, trying to do others harm', murderers, peadophiles, meglomaniac presidents who think they can bomb the world into submission, but when you include homosexuals and anyone who may support the right to choose in this category then that is a comletely different story
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby kuha » Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:40 am

lonewolf wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Thanks for the post. This is a good summary of all the Rush, Fox and other wingnut talking points.


Ah, and theres the rub. You dismiss them as "wingnut talking points" without disproving, or even denying their validity.


Sadly, Conor is exactly right here. This collection of assorted quasi-facts, cherry-picked facts, and paranoid projections simply doesn't add up to a coherent (for me, I perhaps don't need to add) or helpful world view. But, hey, that's why they have elections isn't it?
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:29 am

mump boy wrote: but when you include homosexuals and anyone who may support the right to choose in this category then that is a comletely different story


Who said anything about Christians vs. homosexuals? I consider myself Christian and dismiss homo-phobic right-wing nut-jobs as being very UnChristian. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, not hate and divisiveness. They may THINK they're Christians, but I assure you they do not represent any Christianity I understand, just as the radical Muslims who blow up themselves and their own countrymen do not accurately portray Islam.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21102
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Mennisco » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:54 am

Mellow Johnny wrote:I voted Nadar and don't regret it.

You show flashes of a brilliant imagination - if only you'd use your power for Good.
:roll:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby lonewolf » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:50 pm

bad hammy wrote:[Considering how well things have turned out on the Bush watch I find it hard to fathom anyone as seemingly rational as you saying that you would want four more years of the same under any circumstances, including your issues with the two major candidates at hand.


Hammy, I did not say I wanted four more years of George W. Bush. He has displeased me on many issues but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis and he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.

Nor do I want four years of McCain but we only have two choices here. This is the 20th Presidential election in my lifetime and the 15th in which I will vote. I do not recall that we have ever had two more dismal choices but, IMO, McCain is the better choice.

I have three children, all raised mid-continent, middle class and graduates of semi-conservative Oklahoma universities.
My younger son and daughter, without any conscious coaching, are as rock-ribbed conservative as their daddy, grandpa, gg grandpa.... as far back as we can go.
But, I have a confession to make. My precocious eldest daughter, an uber successful attorney in Seattle, won national conservative red/white/blue essay contests while in HS before entering law school on full scholarship at the University of Washington, where, inexplicably, she morphed into a flaming liberal before passing the Washington law bar three months after her 21st birthday. We mostly avoid discussing politics.

I challenge her by observing out that she lives in a mortgage free, 2 million dollar home, drives a $100,000 Mercedes (and a Prius when her environmental impulses kick in) vacations all over the world on a whim, enjoys national recognition and high regard in her profession.. what exactly is it she wants to change?

She is an ardent fiscal conservative/capitalist, does not seem to have and has no reason to have a "guilt" complex about her self-earned success. Nor does she seem to be a social liberal bent on "spreading the wealth". She is, in short, an enigma with an uncompromising hatred of George Bush for which, despite her Mensa mind and oratory skills, she is unable to articulate an explanation.

To paraphrase the Ricky Van Shelton song, "(Don"t) We all have the right to be wrong now and then?"

Doesn't mean anyone is "bad". We just have a different opinion of what is right... and wrong.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:23 pm

lonewolf wrote:but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis


he is

his govt didn't provide enough regulatory control over these nonsense mortgage bonds allowing complete garbage to be passed off as AAA rated bonds which banks, etc snapped up

they were worthless & eventually led to the credit crunch
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby TrakFan » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:25 pm

lonewolf wrote: he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.


Please explin why you feel he is/was right on Iraq
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:25 pm

lonewolf wrote:But, I have a confession to make. My precocious eldest daughter, an uber successful attorney in Seattle, won national conservative red/white/blue essay contests while in HS before entering law school on full scholarship at the University of Washington, where, inexplicably, she morphed into a flaming liberal before passing the Washington law bar three months after her 21st birthday. We mostly avoid discussing politics.

I challenge her by observing out that she lives in a mortgage free, 2 million dollar home, drives a $100,000 Mercedes (and a Prius when her environmental impulses kick in) vacations all over the world on a whim, enjoys national recognition and high regard in her profession.. what exactly is it she wants to change?

She is an ardent fiscal conservative/capitalist, does not seem to have and has no reason to have a "guilt" complex about her self-earned success. Nor does she seem to be a social liberal bent on "spreading the wealth". She is, in short, an enigma with an uncompromising hatred of George Bush for which, despite her Mensa mind and oratory skills, she is unable to articulate an explanation.

To paraphrase the Ricky Van Shelton song, "(Don"t) We all have the right to be wrong now and then?"

Doesn't mean anyone is "bad". We just have a different opinion of what is right... and wrong.

Isn't it possible that your daughter is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a la Colin Powell?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: question for those who voted for Bush the last 2 electio

Postby Flumpy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:35 pm

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote: but when you include homosexuals and anyone who may support the right to choose in this category then that is a comletely different story


Who said anything about Christians vs. homosexuals? I consider myself Christian and dismiss homo-phobic right-wing nut-jobs as being very UnChristian. Christianity preaches love and tolerance, not hate and divisiveness. They may THINK they're Christians, but I assure you they do not represent any Christianity I understand, just as the radical Muslims who blow up themselves and their own countrymen do not accurately portray Islam.


Which is exactly what mump was saying in the first place!!!
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:48 pm

lonewolf wrote: George W. Bush. . . . has displeased me on many issues but he is not responsible for the current economic crisis and he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.

That remains to be seen, of course. I'm not sure whom to blame for the current economic crises, although I suspect there were things that the current administration could have and perhaps should have done that might have helped. As for the urgent and imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism, I don't think Obama or anyone else would argue that there is no such obligation. I certainly wouldn't. But many thoughtful folks believe that W's policies were totally ineffective in that area and may, in fact, have unintentionally given comfort to those evil men who are trying to spread anti-American fanaticism and violence in the Islamic world.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:20 pm

TrakFan wrote:
lonewolf wrote: he is right on Iraq and the urgent, imperative moral obligation to resist international terrorism. I firmly believe history will absolve and honor him.


Please explin why you feel he is/was right on Iraq

I'd like to see that explanation as well. The fact of the matter is that we invaded a country that didn't attack us, had no plans to attack us, was not an ally of Al Qaeda to rid it of weapons that it did not have. Terrorism is the price that nations must pay for colonialism, hegemonism and interventionism. If they don't want to pay the price, they must stop colonizing, hegemonizing and intervening.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:41 pm

this was unfinished business

W was just completing the job his father pathetically didn't do 12y before - namely oust that monster saddam

the world & his dog wanted saddam finished in '91 & why so much opprobrium that W did the job finally ?

as long as saddam ruled there woud be threats to kuwait/saudi - western allies

to oust saddam, you had to invade iraq - same as wouda been required in '91

you woud have had same iraqi anarchy situation 13y before as they did in '03 onwards
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:41 pm

I'm with tandfman and jazzcyclist here. Our involvement in Iraq was instigated under a cloud of lies; caused many, many more problems for us than it has solved; has taken over 4,000 US lives plus all of the wounded, not to mention Iraqis; has served as recruitment tool and training ground for terrorists who were not there before we got there; and has done nothing to get to the terrorist who took down the twin towers. A complete fiasco, one that the Bush administration is 100% repsonsible for . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests