View Full Version : Bush Or Kerry? Why?
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 16:15
Lets have a nice discussion about who you would like to see in office for the new term and why you feel that way.
Akumulator
2004-05-16, 16:20
Oh no..... a political discussion so soon? :)
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 16:25
I believe bush's administration made mistakes in the way they made discussions the media could twist. As the liberals and democrat's even said after bush won they were going to do everything to tear him down.
I believe he stands up for what he believes in. (more integrity that a guy like Clinton who says whatever the people want to hear)
We all know they had or have WMD (they were using gas on their people in the 80's) but we gave them 6 months to get them out of Iraq.
The economy is on the way up and as a former stock broker I can say Bush has help the economy.
We import a small percentage of oil from iraq that the whole war in Iraq is about oil is BS.
History proves that 4-6 months before a reelection the the current party always takes a major hit from all the BS propaganda going around and even more so nowadays with our communication technology.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 16:26
LOL
Well I figured we could have a nice discussion or debate since we more of the intellectual crowd over from AI.com. Or so it seems...
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 16:27
Please explain why you are voting for Kerry in the pole. PLEASE!
Akumulator
2004-05-16, 16:29
I haven't clicked anything on the poll yet.
NosferaDrew
2004-05-16, 16:30
Bush is a clown. I've always maintained that McCain would've been a much better nominee/President - and I'm no Republican.
Gore wasn't ideal either, but at least we wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't have pissed off the rest of the world in the way we invaded Iraq and we wouldn't have such a huge deficit.
I hate politics. Both sides manipulate events, stories, polls, etc. for their own self interests, but Bush has got to go.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 16:55
True the war has made a big deficit but history also shows that in the long run it can better the economy. Please explain why you feel Bush is a "clown."
NosferaDrew
2004-05-16, 17:16
I feel he's a pretender. In over his head.
He doesn't give off that "Leader" vibe to me. He's demonstrated many times that he can't think on his feet and really doesn't have a command of the English language sufficient enough to get his thoughts across in a succinct manner.
He's hired some truly shady guys in his cabinet. Cheney? Rumsfeld? Those guys are scary.
Plus, he was not the best Governor by any measurement.
Texas was the worst polluting state and was next to last regarding education under his rule.
Jeb is a better Governor.
Bush was nominated and "won" the election largely because of his name recognition.
And I agree that history has shown that war can improve the economy, but the point is, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. We should not be there, but now that we are, obviously, we need to stabilize things until we can exit.
But if anyone thinks that "democracy" is going to take hold in Iraq, you're fooling yourselves. It was a mess before we got there, it's a mess now and it's only going to get worse.
Hi, my name is Addabox, I'm an AOholic.
(applause) "Hi, Addabox!"
"It's been two days since my last outburst. (eyes thread topic as sweat begins to bead on brow). I never knew my life could be so.....so......BUSH IS A MOTHERFUCKER! RIGHTWINGERS ARE DUMBSHITS! IRAQ IS A QUAGMIRE! I....I....I can't stop...."(collapses weeping onto folding chair).
thegelding
2004-05-16, 17:36
i don't like bush, nor do i believe he is honest and true like the republicans like to claim...i see no difference between him and clinton except clinton spoke better and believed in things i support..
bush doesn't support any issues i believe in, he was elected? with less votes than gore, he went in saying he would be a uniter and then refused to listen to anything democrats said...
right now our world is at war, with 4 more years we may not have a world
just my opinion though
g
as for kerry...seems like a good man, hard working, smart, hasn't ran from a war and has worked hard to get where he is even with the money he has....some never worked hard and lived off daddy's name
Four more years... (http://www.icompositions.com/auditorium1/showphoto.php?photo=1931&password=&sort=1&cat=all&page=1)
:p
thuh Freak
2004-05-16, 18:45
kerry, b/c i dont think a democrat will start a pre-emptive war.
BRussell
2004-05-16, 18:57
John Kerry, because he's hot, and I have thinly veiled latent homosexuality and since he's from Massachusetts, I still have hope that we can get married and I can be first gentleman of the country but first he's got to dump that bitch he's with now.
Akumulator
2004-05-16, 19:08
but first he's got to dump that bitch he's with now.
But she makes that nice sauce.
hyperb0le
2004-05-16, 19:48
Neither. I think both the main candidates are terrible. It seems like anyone who would be a good president is smart enough to know that politics suck, and anyone crazy enough to actually run isn't fit to run the country. Ugh, stupid politics.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-16, 22:36
I feel he's a pretender. In over his head.
He doesn't give off that "Leader" vibe to me. He's demonstrated many times that he can't think on his feet and really doesn't have a command of the English language sufficient enough to get his thoughts across in a succinct manner.
He's hired some truly shady guys in his cabinet. Cheney? Rumsfeld? Those guys are scary.
Plus, he was not the best Governor by any measurement.
Texas was the worst polluting state and was next to last regarding education under his rule.
Jeb is a better Governor.
Bush was nominated and "won" the election largely because of his name recognition.
And I agree that history has shown that war can improve the economy, but the point is, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. We should not be there, but now that we are, obviously, we need to stabilize things until we can exit.
But if anyone thinks that "democracy" is going to take hold in Iraq, you're fooling yourselves. It was a mess before we got there, it's a mess now and it's only going to get worse.
I like how people judge the president's ability as our commander and chief by how he uses the english language. Einstein was dyslexic but arguably one of the most brilliant men of all time. Just because he can't speak as well as say Clinton has no barring on his ability of being a president. On the other hand would you rather have a slick talker like Clinton who was a genius with words when he talked to the people but they were nothing more than words.
One has to think about the situations where Bush "can't think on his feet" and remember that many of them he was irate with the events that have happened in his 4 year campaign. I mean come on just think about it.
Texas may have what appeared to be a terrible education system when Bush was governor but I can speak from family experiences they were run better than other states. He also implemented many good ideas that worked well but perhaps they didn't show on paper. You have to look at the culture or race of the general population in the state.
As for us being at war. Bush proclaims to be a "christian" and as the bible says, a great nation is to help other nations that are being persecuted and not to mention they were a threat to america simply because Sadam would not cooperate 100%. You don't need anymore reason than that after 9-11. Some people need to open their minds and realize the liberals and democrats with the media are doing everything they can to make Bush look bad. As the saying goes garbage in garbage out. Whether or not you listen or even believe what they say people are getting negative against Bush for the wrong reason's. On another note, Clinton proclaimed to be a christian but was for partial birth abortions even when the supreme court voted against it Clinton vetoed it. Any christian knows that the definition to christian is Christ like. Do you think Christ would like the process in a partial birth abortion? (if you don't know the process look it up, i have an 11 month old and can't even imagine the idea of it)
autodata
2004-05-16, 22:42
I like how people judge the president's [in]ability as our commander and chief by how he uses the english language.
The language thing is just for kicks. After all, he's not the one formulating the policies.
alcimedes
2004-05-16, 22:47
Some people need to open their minds and realize.....
realize that if you ask people for what are obviously going to be contrary opinions from yours, teeing off on them at the first opportunity doesn't really do anyone any good at all.
what was the point of your post?
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 00:04
realize that if you ask people for what are obviously going to be contrary opinions from yours, teeing off on them at the first opportunity doesn't really do anyone any good at all.
what was the point of your post?
Sorry I didn't mean to come across in that way. I was just trying to say how many people, not meaning people here but people I know outside of AI, bash Bush based on many comments made by very liberal people or democrats that are going out of their way to tear Bush down. They said they would do anything in their power to get him out of office after the way he won the election. Many news networks are very biased on their point of views instead of just saying the facts and then let the people decided for them selves. Fox News is pretty much unbiased and leaves it up to the individual to decide. I guess what I was trying to say is many people are being lemmings from all the BS propaganda going around.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 00:37
Oh dear.
:D I'm just expressing how it seems to be for me and many people whom I know that follow many if not every ounce of the current events taking place.
Please say something addabox...
autodata
2004-05-17, 00:41
Where's the LOL smiley?
torifile
2004-05-17, 00:51
Hot rodder,
I'm not sure what you're hoping to get from this thread. Bush has either a) been grossly underinformed as president or b) been dishonest about what he knows. Neither is excusable from the president of the US.
You can claim media conspiracy all you want, but the fact remains Bush hasn't delivered on his promises. He was "born on third and thinks he got a triple." That's all there is to it.
Hot rodder,
I'm not sure what you're hoping to get from this thread. Bush has either a) been grossly underinformed as president or b) been dishonest about what he knows. Neither is excusable from the president of the US.
You can claim media conspiracy all you want, but the fact remains Bush hasn't delivered on his promises. He was "born on third and thinks he got a triple." That's all there is to it.
Hear! Hear!
torifile
2004-05-17, 01:28
Hear! Hear!
Glad to see you made it over here, tonton. :)
NosferaDrew
2004-05-17, 01:32
As for us being at war. Bush proclaims to be a "christian" and as the bible says, a great nation is to help other nations that are being persecuted and not to mention they were a threat to america simply because Sadam would not cooperate 100%. You don't need anymore reason than that after 9-11.
That's a load of shit!
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They've gone on record admitting that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm).
For someone who "follow many if not every ounce of the current events taking place" it's laughable that you even typed that.
If he's so "christian" why doesn't he invade Rwanda and stop the genocide there? Or Haiti? Or Algeria? Or Liberia? etc.
We invaded a soverign country using false/erroneous information and the result is that Bush has tarnished the image of the United States for generations to come to many cultures all around the world.
History will show that Bush will be remembered as one of our worst Presidents.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 01:33
I'm just trying to discuss other people's views and my own and thats it. What has Bush lied to us about or if he has been uninformed whose fault is that really? Please no one get me wrong I do feel his whole administration has made huge mistakes. Maybe not his own but definitely people he chose so either way.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 01:41
That's a load of shit!
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They've gone on record admitting that (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm).
For someone who "follow many if not every ounce of the current events taking place" it's laughable that you even typed that.
If he's so "christian" why doesn't he invade Rwanda and stop the genocide there? Or Haiti? Or Algeria? Or Liberia? etc.
We invaded a soverign country using false/erroneous information and the result is that Bush has tarnished the image of the United States for generations to come to many cultures all around the world.
History will show that Bush will be remembered as one of our worst Presidents.
The fact is we KNOW Sadam had chemical weapons as they were used in the 80's so stands to reason that he had them now. Also having certain amounts of clearance I can assure you they have found more than we know and I can say that as a quote from a Danish soldier (friend of mine) who has been over there before we ever landed.
Who here would support going into Haiti, Liberia, etc. The reason we went to war was in the notion for what's best for the country but the sad part is we waited to long and the weapons were moved out.
torifile
2004-05-17, 01:51
I'm just trying to discuss other people's views and my own and thats it. What has Bush lied to us about or if he has been uninformed whose fault is that really? Please no one get me wrong I do feel his whole administration has made huge mistakes. Maybe not his own but definitely people he chose so either way.
What has he been misinformed about? Are you serious?
Where to begin....
1) The abuse pictures
2) The WMD "intelligence"
3) The Al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11/2001
4) Job growth numbers
And those are just off the top of my head at 3am. As for "whose fault is that, really?" There used to be a time when the president took responsibility for things. You know Harry S. Truman and "the buck stops here." It's his fault, of course.
Why? Because rather than get up to speed on what's going on in the world, he'd rather take vacations on his ranch. That used to work when he was governor of Texas, but it doesn't work now. Rather than read the paper for the news, he skims it and gets briefs from his aides or his wife(!). From this Tuesday's Washington Post:
"I get the newspapers Ñ the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post and USA Today Ñ those are the four papers delivered," he said. "I can scan a front page, and if there is a particular story of interest, I'll skim it."
The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly objective news stories.
"My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."
Those facts are extracted from news stories each day and presented to the president by a half-dozen aides, Mr. Card among them.
"Since I'm the first one to see him in the morning, I usually give him a quick overview and get a little reaction from him," Mr. Card explained. "Frequently, I find that his reaction kind of reflects [first lady] Laura Bush's take."
Indeed, the president often cites articles that Mrs. Bush flags for greater scrutiny, even when he has not personally slogged through those stories. Mrs. Bush routinely delves more deeply into the news pages than her husband, who prefers other sections.
"He does not dwell on the newspaper, but he reads the sports page every day," Mr. Card said with a chuckle.
'A clear outlook'
Mr. Bush thinks that immersing himself in voluminous, mostly liberal-leaning news coverage might cloud his thinking and even hinder his efforts to remain an optimistic leader.
"I like to have a clear outlook," he said. "It can be a frustrating experience to pay attention to somebody's false opinion or somebody's characterization, which simply isn't true."
It's his fucking fault he's uninformed. He'd rather read the sports section than the New Yorker. That's not a good leader.
autodata
2004-05-17, 01:55
The fact is we KNOW Sadam had chemical weapons as they were used in the 80's so stands to reason that he had them now.
'stands to reason' isn't going to fly
Also having certain amounts of clearance
Clearance? Like we all can't just look at your .mac page
torifile
2004-05-17, 01:55
The fact is we KNOW Sadam had chemical weapons as they were used in the 80's so stands to reason that he had them now. Also having certain amounts of clearance I can assure you they have found more than we know and I can say that as a quote from a Danish soldier (friend of mine) who has been over there before we ever landed.
Hey, you know, I had a $20 bill in my wallet JUST YESTERDAY. Guess what? It's gone now. The 80's were a long time ago. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney - both of whom were buddies with Saddam back then. Or the city of Detroit (http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0303/26/a06-119619.htm), which gave Saddam the key to the friggin' city.
Where the hell are the REAL right-wingers? The ones who could actually argue a point???
NosferaDrew
2004-05-17, 02:03
Where the hell are the REAL right-wingers? The ones who could actually argue a point???
lol :D
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 02:10
Clearance? Like we all can't just look at your .mac page
Yes My uncle has very high clearance and has shared things that can be shared. Please look at my page all you want. I should have worded that differently...my fault. I guess I'm more tired than I thought.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 02:10
Where the hell are the REAL right-wingers? :D The Flames are going to win!
autodata
2004-05-17, 02:43
Yes My uncle has very high clearance and has shared things that can be shared.
Is he the one that taught you that it 'stands to reason?'
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 10:06
Is he the one that taught you that it 'stands to reason?'
No but he has told me that they have found more then we all know about and the same thing with Bin Ladin when the media was saying one thing my uncle said the facts we (our intelligence) know is absolutely different.
autodata
2004-05-17, 10:18
No but he has told me that they have found more then we all know about
Some quick advice: a) knowledge of a subject like Iraqi WMD doesn't come from comments made by a family member, just like a non-programmer can't learn python from a conversation at aunt gertrude's bday b) never, ever assume that strangers aren't in your 'uncle's' position or at least have family/friends/spouse/etc that are.
These are two great rules to live by. They can help prevent the accidental release of misquided statements. ;)
torifile
2004-05-17, 12:28
The economy is on the way up and as a former stock broker I can say Bush has help the economy.
You're a former stock broker? I don't believe it.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 13:56
You're a former stock broker? I don't believe it.
Well, believe want you want but I have taken the test and obtained a Series 7 license. I have also traded common stock so I don't know if that qualifies or not. (sarcasism) I actually worked for a boutique brokerage named InterCap Wealth Management (http://www.intercapwealth.com) for about 2 years.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 14:04
Some quick advice: a) knowledge of a subject like Iraqi WMD doesn't come from comments made by a family member, just like a non-programmer can't learn python from a conversation at aunt gertrude's bday b) never, ever assume that strangers aren't in your 'uncle's' position or at least have family/friends/spouse/etc that are.
These are two great rules to live by. They can help prevent the accidental release of misquided statements. ;)
I understand your point and do tend to agree. My questions to my uncle were asked and his reply was he cannot speak about it. However in short I did ask what he could speak about and he did say things like "there has been more WMD found then we have been lead to believe." He also said things about Bin Ladin and his whereabouts when the media was saying something totally different. Many months later mind you they said exactly what he had said to me. Other things were said in the lines of the media and their exaggeration of the truth. We all know that many times the truth doesn't sell. Scandals and screw ups will obtain much more attention.
torifile
2004-05-17, 14:13
However in short I did ask what he could speak about and he did say things like "there has been more WMD found then we have been lead to believe."
I'm sure there have been many times more WMD than we've been told. But guess what??? x * 0 = 0.
He also said things about Bin Ladin and his whereabouts when the media was saying something totally different.
So this just goes to show that neither the military nor the media knows here he is. Big whoop.
But what does this have to do with Bush? He's shown he knows nothing about what's going on. :rolleyes:
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 14:31
I'm sure there have been many times more WMD than we've been told. But guess what??? x * 0 = 0.
So this just goes to show that neither the military nor the media knows here he is. Big whoop.
But what does this have to do with Bush? He's shown he knows nothing about what's going on. :rolleyes:
Well, I would think he knows more than any of us.
autodata
2004-05-17, 15:11
Well, I would think he knows more than any of us.
Pretty unlikely.
See previous post.
Add to it: people with 'clearance' also have a tendency to think they know more than they do. As Rummy himself once put it (http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html):
Many people around the president have sizeable egos before entering government, some with good reason. Their new positions will do little to moderate their egos.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 15:21
Pretty unlikely.
See previous post.
Add to it: people with 'clearance' also have a tendency to think they know more than they do. As Rummy himself once put it (http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html):
I know this is merely words but on a personal note if you knew my uncle you would know he has no ego. (seriously) You can't honestly believe that we know more of the facts than the president.
(seriously) You can't honestly believe that we know more of the facts than the president.
given his track record...yes you can.
alcimedes
2004-05-17, 15:31
let's cut the attitude out of this thread. if you can't reply to a post w/o the sarcasm/condesention, why bother replying at all?
this is how most political threads over at .com would derail into stupidity. i'd be interested to see if it could keep from happening here.
(this isn't to anyone in particular, just an observation)
BRussell
2004-05-17, 15:32
Hot rodder, are you saying that they found WMD a long time ago, but decided not to tell the press? Is that really plausible? Why in the world would they do that? I can remember a string of "they found WMD" headlines a year ago or so, and none of them turned out to be true. IN that sense, it's really the opposite. They've been leaking to the press that they found stuff, when it really turned out they hadn't.
Anyway, on Bush in general, in my mind there are really two key issues, 1) the federal budget and 2) the war on terrorism. IMO, Bush has been absolutely unforgivable, seriously maybe the worst president in history, on the federal budget. He has decided to cut taxes - and cut them in a certain way, by cutting rates, which benefits the wealthiest more than the lower incomes - at the same time as he has increased spending. And he's done this during a time of war, when every other president has raised taxes to pay for their wars. I read a statistic that this war will cost more than WWII when all is said and done.
On the war on terrorism, he did well in afghanistan, but then dropped the ball in order to go after Iraq. Even that could have been done right, IMO, but it wasn't.
On both issues, I think Kerry would be much better. I don't think Bush is an idiot, or he's evil incarnate or anything, I just don't think he's been a responsible president. I also disagree with his values - the religious conservative type. I guess it's the whole anti-gay, gov't as big-brother stuff that turns me off.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 16:31
Hot rodder, are you saying that they found WMD a long time ago, but decided not to tell the press? Is that really plausible? Why in the world would they do that? I can remember a string of "they found WMD" headlines a year ago or so, and none of them turned out to be true. IN that sense, it's really the opposite. They've been leaking to the press that they found stuff, when it really turned out they hadn't.
Anyway, on Bush in general, in my mind there are really two key issues, 1) the federal budget and 2) the war on terrorism. IMO, Bush has been absolutely unforgivable, seriously maybe the worst president in history, on the federal budget. He has decided to cut taxes - and cut them in a certain way, by cutting rates, which benefits the wealthiest more than the lower incomes - at the same time as he has increased spending. And he's done this during a time of war, when every other president has raised taxes to pay for their wars. I read a statistic that this war will cost more than WWII when all is said and done.
On the war on terrorism, he did well in afghanistan, but then dropped the ball in order to go after Iraq. Even that could have been done right, IMO, but it wasn't.
On both issues, I think Kerry would be much better. I don't think Bush is an idiot, or he's evil incarnate or anything, I just don't think he's been a responsible president. I also disagree with his values - the religious conservative type. I guess it's the whole anti-gay, gov't as big-brother stuff that turns me off.
I'm saying that they have found more then what we know. As I said I have a Danish friend who was over in Iraq before we invaded and he saw things that were long gone before we were there in full force.
I would like to see info leading to your comment saying this war will cost more than WWII. That could be dollar amount but we all know that $5 back then is approx. $50 or $75 now. That would be an interesting statistic nevertheless.
I can agree Bush and his administration didn't go about the war in Iraq correctly but I think he wanted to get there before it was too late which is what appears to be the case.
He is anti-gay because he says he is a Christian and in the bible it says many times that homosexuality is wrong. I like how he is standing up for what he believes in not just saying what people want to hear. This country was founded under those believes but sadly we have lost them.
torifile
2004-05-17, 16:38
He is anti-gay because he says he is a Christian and in the bible it says many times that homosexuality is wrong. I like how he is standing up for what he believes in not just saying what people want to hear. This country was founded under those believes but sadly we have lost them.
And here we've got one of my other reasons I'm not for Bush. I'm not Christian. While you may believe that the country was founded with Christian ideals, you're wrong.
There is separation of Church and State for good reason. I want a president who recognizes that personal beliefs shouldn't rule policy for a country. If he's devout and wants to live his life by his beliefs, more power to him. He has NO RIGHT to tell me how to live mine.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 17:18
And here we've got one of my other reasons I'm not for Bush. I'm not Christian. While you may believe that the country was founded with Christian ideals, you're wrong.
There is separation of Church and State for good reason. I want a president who recognizes that personal beliefs shouldn't rule policy for a country. If he's devout and wants to live his life by his beliefs, more power to him. He has NO RIGHT to tell me how to live mine.
That's fine and good but the point is this country was founded under Christian men. Our pledge, our national anthem, our original constitution were all based on the morals of Christian men. Even our money says "One nation under God." Our pledge and anthem all have lines saying "One nation under God" and "God shed his grace on the." Believe in it or not but the majority of the population's belief for a couple hundred years was this country was so successful from God's grace on us. Some atheist scientist have even proved that families going to some form of church have fewer problems and that when separation of church and state took place things have steadily gotten worse with schools and families.
That doesn't change the fact that Bush's personal belief in god should not have any effect on the decisions he makes for this country.
particularly something that invades on personal freedoms.
autodata
2004-05-17, 17:22
Who's turn is it to explain the pledge bit?
autodata
2004-05-17, 17:26
OK, I guess it's on me. "under God" added in 1954 or 1953
Well, I for one would like to thank the admins of .org for providing us with a newly minted conservative foil; however, it clearly still needs work.
The arguments need to be a little more plausible, not quite so blithely party line. Maybe tone down the rhetoric a tad, a little less earnest, a little more informed. The frequency of posting is spot on, however.
I look forward to having at V.2.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 17:44
OK, I guess it's on me. "under God" added in 1954 or 1953
OK...I looked that bit up and it is true but it still doesn't change the fact that the country was founded under God.
Link please...
Here's one (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0614b-almanac.htm)
another (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12984)
thegelding
2004-05-17, 17:49
will look for a link....was added by the senate during the fear of the godless communist....original had no mention of god
g
OK...I looked that bit up and it is true but it still doesn't change the fact that the country was founded under God.
:D
and that STILL doesn't change the fact that we've established a separation of church and state for a reason, and that the president should not let his religion affect the decisions he makes for the country.
curiousuburb
2004-05-17, 17:54
and the money was E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) until the McCarthyites, too
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 18:02
and the money was E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) until the McCarthyites, too
My point was right now our money says "In God we trust" but the irony is we don't trust in God. Well, as a nation we don't.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 18:03
:D
and that STILL doesn't change the fact that we've established a separation of church and state for a reason, and that the president should not let his religion affect the decisions he makes for the country.
Then why does the country run to God when something like 9-11 happens and then quickly forgets about him.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 18:05
On a complete side note this thread is going pretty well! Please! Lets all keep it this way!
:D
Then why does the country run to God when something like 9-11 happens and then quickly forgets about him.
some people do.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 18:35
some people do.
Yes I know some people do but the majority that did when 9-11 happen are nolonger today.
torifile
2004-05-17, 19:23
My point was right now our money says "In God we trust" but the irony is we don't trust in God. Well, as a nation we don't.
Yeah that is ironic. Especially since our wise forefathers put it there. Err, wait... hmm.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 19:30
Yeah that is ironic. Especially since our wise forefathers put it there. Err, wait... hmm.
I never said our forefathers put "In God we trust" on our money.
NosferaDrew
2004-05-17, 20:46
Well, I for one would like to thank the admins of .org for providing us with a newly minted conservative foil; however, it clearly still needs work.
The arguments need to be a little more plausible, not quite so blithely party line. Maybe tone down the rhetoric a tad, a little less earnest, a little more informed. The frequency of posting is spot on, however.
I look forward to having at V.2.
lol, very funny. nicely done. :)
torifile
2004-05-17, 20:50
I never said our forefathers put "In God we trust" on our money.
But they established this country on "christian ideals".
torifile
2004-05-17, 20:55
OK...I looked that bit up and it is true but it still doesn't change the fact that the country was founded under God.
It's a fact, eh? Have any links for this fact? ;)
Look, this country was established by men who had the foresight to keep church and state separate. I think that they were wiser than the last 10 presidents we've had combined. Who is GW Bush to think he knows better than they?
NosferaDrew
2004-05-17, 20:59
No but he has told me that they have found more then we all know about and the same thing with Bin Ladin when the media was saying one thing my uncle said the facts we (our intelligence) know is absolutely different.
This is exactly the evidence that the Bush Administration needs to justify the entire war and your Uncle says that our government is hiding it?
Unlikely.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 21:09
It's a fact, eh? Have any links for this fact? ;)
Look, this country was established by men who had the foresight to keep church and state separate. I think that they were wiser than the last 10 presidents we've had combined. Who is GW Bush to think he knows better than they?
I'm not understanding your comment that this country was established by men with the foresight to keep the church and state separate. That didn't happen until the mid 1960's wasn't it. They had the foresight to establish a free country to freely worship the god in the bible as well as allowing others to worship who ever they so choose. That in no way changes the fact that everything they started was based on the god of the bible Christians read.
NosferaDrew
2004-05-17, 21:10
....but it still doesn't change the fact that the country was founded under God.
Absolutely untrue.
Following up on what torifile and Wrao have said about the seperation of church and state, look here (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm)
Some highlights:
The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
The Treaty of Tripoli states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
BRussell
2004-05-17, 21:33
I'm not understanding your comment that this country was established by men with the foresight to keep the church and state separate. That didn't happen until the mid 1960's wasn't it. They had the foresight to establish a free country to freely worship the god in the bible as well as allowing others to worship who ever they so choose. That in no way changes the fact that everything they started was based on the god of the bible Christians read. "Separation of church and state" was Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the Constitution. He wasn't from the 1960s, I don't think. If anything, it was the 1950s in which many of the symbolic church-state interminglings occurred, such as God in the pledge and on the money.
torifile
2004-05-17, 21:57
That in no way changes the fact that everything they started was based on the god of the bible Christians read.
Ok, thus far in the discussion, we've taken on the burden of proof. Now I'm calling on you to name exactly what "they started" was based on the Bible. And don't gimme crap like "all men were created equal". I'm talking stuff that's directly traceable to the Bible, not common sense or general good behavior.
Go for it.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-17, 22:26
Ok, thus far in the discussion, we've taken on the burden of proof. Now I'm calling on you to name exactly what "they started" was based on the Bible. And don't gimme crap like "all men were created equal". I'm talking stuff that's directly traceable to the Bible, not common sense or general good behavior.
Go for it.No I wouldn't say all men are created equal. :D I need alittle while as I am going to be away from my computer for a few hours but couldn't keep away entirely. In the great words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back."
In the great words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back."Bring Links Please, Mr. Terminator :D
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 01:06
Ok, thus far in the discussion, we've taken on the burden of proof. Now I'm calling on you to name exactly what "they started" was based on the Bible. And don't gimme crap like "all men were created equal". I'm talking stuff that's directly traceable to the Bible, not common sense or general good behavior.
Go for it.
I don't think I ever said, what they started was based on the Bible and if I did that wasn't my intention. My intention was they were, atleast a lot of them, Christian men whom believed in the Bible. On that note although, phrases like "all men are created equal" are things the Bible does teach. How about, "Treat others as you would be treated," another idea the Bible teaches. I don't have much time but a simple Link (http://christianparty.net/christianation4.htm) I quickly found shows what many of our forefathers believed and said we needed in order for our great nation to prosper. You can quickly find that this country was indeed found under the Christian beliefs and many of the ideas in our original precious documents were indeed inspired upon Christian beliefs. I could keep on going but I am tired and have a business trip to Baltimore I must make Wednesday and I must do certain things tomorrow in order to prepare.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1783: [End of the war, to all state governors] "I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."
George Washington, The Writings of Washington, Jared Sparks, ed. Boston: American Stationers' Co., 1838, Vol 18, p. 452, cited in Barton, p. 99
I like this one too:
U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1892: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892); cited by Barton, America's Godly Heritage, pp. 10-11
torifile
2004-05-18, 01:19
I don't think I ever said, what they started was based on the Bible and if I did that wasn't my intention. My intention was they were, atleast a lot of them, Christian men whom believed in the Bible. On that note although, phrases like "all men are created equal" are things the Bible does teach. How about, "Treat others as you would be treated," another idea the Bible teaches. I don't have much time but a simple Link (http://christianparty.net/christianation4.htm) I quickly found shows what many of our forefathers believed and said we needed in order for our great nation to prosper.
Their personal beliefs are not an issue. The issue is that you said everything they did was based on the bible. You've failed to show a single instance when this was true. Your "christian ideals" in the government and society in general were actually present in religions that predated christianity (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/KS4/Social%20Harmony/buddhismracial.htm). (The arrogance of some christians to think that they were the first to believe in equality astounds me sometimes.)
You can quickly find that this country was indeed found under the Christian beliefs and many of the ideas in our original precious documents were indeed inspired upon Christian beliefs. I could keep on going but I am tired and have a business trip to Baltimore I must make Wednesday and I must do certain things tomorrow in order to prepare.
I'm not going to go searching for your evidence for you. The onus is on you to prove your point. As yet, it's still your opinion.
Regardless, I think you've still got some work to do to show that separation of church and state should be gotten rid of.
I don't think I ever said, what they started was based on the Bible and if I did that wasn't my intention. My intention was they were, atleast a lot of them, Christian men whom believed in the Bible. On that note although, phrases like "all men are created equal" are things the Bible does teach. How about, "Treat others as you would be treated," another idea the Bible teaches. I don't have much time but a simple Link (http://christianparty.net/christianation4.htm) Nice headline on the website you linked....
The State must be Openly, Publicly, and Officially Christian
BRussell
2004-05-18, 09:14
As far as I know, the phrase "all men are created equal" is not a Christian one at all.
There's no doubt that George Washington was an openly religious and christian president. Not unlike our current George, I guess. :)
But to me one of the ironies in the "we're a christian nation" idea is that I see our country as having been founded on principles of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment) - John Locke and his type. The whole point of the Enlightenment was to break away from religion and move towards a rationalistic, humanistic approach.
The Enlightenment (The Age of Enlightenment) was an intellectual movement in 18th Century Europe. The goal of the Enlightenment was to establish an authoritative ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge based on an "enlightened" rationality (also logocentric). The movement's leaders viewed themselves as a courageous, elite body of enlightened intellectuals who were leading the world toward progress, out of a long period of irrationality, immaturity, and tyranny which began during a historical period they called the Dark Ages. This movement provided a framework for the American and French Revolutions, as well as the rise of capitalism.
Enlightenment thinkers believed that the solution to the world's ills was rational thinking. It marked an effort to replace religion and aristocracy-based truths and social structures with those defined by rationality and common sense. Thus, social structures became increasingly characterized by a loss of faith in traditional religious sources of authority and a turn toward deism, natural law, natural history, the scientific method and other methodical ways of thinking, and the replacement of theocracies and hereditary aristocracies with democracies and republics led by elite bodies of men who were thought to be "enlightened" because of their rationality and common sense.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 10:08
Their personal beliefs are not an issue. The issue is that you said everything they did was based on the bible. You've failed to show a single instance when this was true. Your "christian ideals" in the government and society in general were actually present in religions that predated christianity (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/KS4/Social%20Harmony/buddhismracial.htm). (The arrogance of some christians to think that they were the first to believe in equality astounds me sometimes.)
I'm not going to go searching for your evidence for you. The onus is on you to prove your point. As yet, it's still your opinion.
Regardless, I think you've still got some work to do to show that separation of church and state should be gotten rid of.
The foresight's many of our founding fathers had were based upon the Christian belief's. If you do not agree then prove it but the little time I have to search I can find that their inspiration for this country was to prosper under God as a Christian nation. The entire government was established based on Christian ways. The only actions that took place that were not Christian was only to keep the union united. Otherwise rest assured all laws would have been based on the 10 Commandments and the Bible. Even or school system was started with the belief that the best education is one based under Christ. Harvard our first college was a Christian school along with the next 107 schools following it.
Your comment about the "Christian ideals" that were in place before Christianity does not change the fact they were still ideas of the Bible of our countries time. I never acted as though Christian's were the first. I don't care if it had been established 100 times before. The fact is our founding fathers founded this country under Biblical ways and if they took ideas or ways from the past does in no way mean it wasn't Biblical. The Bible even says to be wise and learn from your mistakes so that would imply to learn from and use ideas from history.
The country was founded Biblically based. (http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/america.html)
Agian. (http://wakeupamericainc.org/ministrymessage.html)
Agian. (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=94)
Seperation of church and state has affected public schools. (http://www.utch.org/handbk01.htm)
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 10:38
As far as I know, the phrase "all men are created equal" is not a Christian one at all.
There's no doubt that George Washington was an openly religious and christian president. Not unlike our current George, I guess. :)
But to me one of the ironies in the "we're a christian nation" idea is that I see our country as having been founded on principles of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment) - John Locke and his type. The whole point of the Enlightenment was to break away from religion and move towards a rationalistic, humanistic approach.
The phrase might not be created by Christians but it coincides with what the Bible teaches.
Yes they did want to break free of religion because essentially religion is man made. Christianity is solely based upon the Bible at least true Christianity. Also I somewhat agree that we did search for enlightenment for the glory of God. Well, atleast the founders and majority of the country were Christian and knew through God anything is possible. In a true Christian nation people have freedom to choose whom or whatever to worship. That's not to say the country wasn't a Christian country at roots just that people were given the right to choose. The Bible even teaches that God doesn't want us forced to turn to him but he longs for us to choose him as our redeemer. People were being persecuted for their Christian belief's under a "religious" rule and came to America to be able to practice it freely.
:eek: need..... LOL..... smiley..... desperately.....
ahh well, I'll just settle for
ROTFLMAO
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 10:53
:eek: need..... LOL..... smiley..... desperately.....
ahh well, I'll just settle for
ROTFLMAO
Care to explain why...
... because I think you're confusing the Pilgrims on the Mayflower with the people who wrote the Constitution
BRussell
2004-05-18, 11:06
Also I somewhat agree that we did search for enlightenment for the glory of God. Well, atleast the founders and majority of the country were Christian and knew through God anything is possible. But my point was that our country and the enlightenment movement of the 18th century came about due to a distancing from religion. Sure, religion still had a large influence on people, but it was the weakening of that influence that brought about our form of government.
Anyway, to get more on topic, I think one of the reasons for the great divide in American politics right now is religion. Bush and Repubs in general are much more attractive to religious folks whereas the other side is more attractive to non-religious folks. Not sure why, because I see nothing inherently more religious or Christian in one side or the other.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 11:17
... because I think you're confusing the Pilgrims on the Mayflower with the people who wrote the Constitution
No not at all. I know who the Pilgrims were and I know who wrote the Constitution but the primary goal of the two groups were probably similar.
HoTT RoDeR
2004-05-18, 11:38
But my point was that our country and the enlightenment movement of the 18th century came about due to a distancing from religion. Sure, religion still had a large influence on people, but it was the weakening of that influence that brought about our form of government.
Anyway, to get more on topic, I think one of the reasons for the great divide in American politics right now is religion. Bush and Repubs in general are much more attractive to religious folks whereas the other side is more attractive to non-religious folks. Not sure why, because I see nothing inherently more religious or Christian in one side or the other.I want to get one thing straight. True Christian faith is by definition a strive to be more Christ like in your daily life. Now Christ says throughout the Bible something along the lines that we should live our lives by the Bible's teachings. So on to religions which are man made, given they may be inspired by the Bible but they do not follow it as a true Christian does. Religions all have there own ways of dealing with certain subjects which is great but these subjects can be completely against everything the Bible is for.
I think people may be misunderstanding me. I am not saying our founders started a government that enforced Christian belief's alone. However I am saying that the government they started was let's say almost completely Christian friendly because then and only then could they establish the free, liberty driven society we once had. Now as I said there were areas which were not Christian friendly but they were only that way to keep the union united. We in our recent history have strayed away from many of the christian friendly roots and in doing so our country as a whole has increasingly had more problems. Anywhere from scandals and crime or even down to our schools.
This is just an idea to your comment but maybe the democrats are more towards "religion" and the republicans are more towards "Christian." Where what I said above is that the two are actually very different although to many if not most people religion and Christianity are the same, however thats not so.
ShiggyMiyamoto
2004-06-26, 17:37
Kerry because if I voted Republican (regardsless of the candidate) my parents would kill me if my vote caused that person to win. lol. I'm politically neutral... but I strongly dislike the way Bush is handing things. He needs a kick in the ass and a break. I think Kerry'd do a better job.
Ah well, it was a nice political silence while it lasted. Let's just say who I'd prefer in office and who I will vote for are not necessarily the same people. I think the two party system is closed, corrupt and money-driven to the hilt... thus most members of that system are also in some measure corrupt because they do nothing about it. Their jobs are cushy, they're rarely held responsible for anything and they "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" all day long.
Some of that is unavoidable in any political system but it doesn't have to be all that, all the time... McCain is a noteable exception; too bad he back-tracked and kissed George's butt the other day. I guess it's too much to expect a politician be respectable for more than a few months at a time.
Can we talk about something else now? I find one of the reasons I have started looking at this forum first each day is that it lacks all the political static in the original forum, if you take my meaning. Which also means certain parties tend not to post here too much....
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.