|
pyroclasticlux
|
 |
« on: September 21, 2008, 09:37:21 AM » |
|
the two largest political parties in a state of democracy tend to be liberal and conservative:
in the states, it's Democrat vs Republican;
in britain, it's Labour vs Conservative;
in canada, it's Liberal vs Conservative (where'd they come up with those misleading names?  )
however, for some, it's not that simple; there are also independents, moderates, and those who dislike democracy altogether.
this topic is here for you to discuss your voting preference(s) overall and explain & examine that preference.
please try to keep it friendly - or at least civil. disagreements are certainly welcome; name-calling isn't. 
No man thoroughly understands a truth until he has contended against it. --ralph waldo emerson
A blind man knows he cannot see and is glad to be led, though it be by a dog; but he that is blind in his understanding, which is the worst blindness of all, believes he sees as the best, and scorns a guide. --samuel butler
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 10:58:15 PM by pyroclasticlux »
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
 Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2008, 01:27:02 PM » |
|
I'm a Democrat. My values are progressive across the board, though I do disagree with liberals on some issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2008, 05:54:08 PM » |
|
As you can probably guess, I typically vote Republican. I like to consider all the options, and seriously considered voting for Jim Doyle (Wisc. Dem. Govr.) until I read about his pick for sidekick. I don't know what to do for this election because there are no true Republicans running for President--just a wishy-washy guy who claims to be Republican, but is no more a Republican than Obama is Christian as he proclaims (see http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=38840). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
The Sleeper
Jr. Member
Karma: 3
Offline
Posts: 76
Directive?
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2008, 04:30:19 PM » |
|
As you can probably guess, I typically vote Republican. I like to consider all the options, and seriously considered voting for Jim Doyle (Wisc. Dem. Govr.) until I read about his pick for sidekick. I don't know what to do for this election because there are no true Republicans running for President--just a wishy-washy guy who claims to be Republican, but is no more a Republican than Obama is Christian as he proclaims (see http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=38840). I disagree very strongly with the viewpoint taken by that article. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Okay, woke to a grocery list...
Goes like this:
Duty and death.
-Aesop Rock
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2008, 09:05:38 PM » |
|
As you can probably guess, I typically vote Republican. I like to consider all the options, and seriously considered voting for Jim Doyle (Wisc. Dem. Govr.) until I read about his pick for sidekick. I don't know what to do for this election because there are no true Republicans running for President--just a wishy-washy guy who claims to be Republican, but is no more a Republican than Obama is Christian as he proclaims (see http://www.christianadc.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=38840). Whoever wrote the article needs to learn how to use "its" and "it's" properly. John 8:6 - 7They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!”Oh, and one of my favorite parts: I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
(Obama is suspicious of certainty, but he is certain that his suspicion is justifiable. This is irrational gibberish.)What Obama is obviously saying is that anyone being so certain of their beliefs despite the alarming evidence to the contrary (this includes atheists) should be kept at a distance. The irony here is that the interviewer uses the term "irrational gibberish" to describe Obama's words ... hello? religion in general, anyone?
GG: How long ago?
OBAMA: 16, 17 years ago 1987 or 88.
(Every Christian that has been born again as an adult can look to a very specific time. Not a two year time span.)
Really? EVERY Christian? Idiot.
GG: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
(Christians do not get nervous when asked about their Lord and Savior, they unflinchingly bear witness to his saving power and grace.)
Christians also have perfect white skin, perfect teeth, beautiful long hair and a beard, just like Jesus! 
Now, that’s different from a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.
(Where does Obama get his values? Apparently not from the scripture, so why doesn’t he just say that he wants a radically secular government and secular values.)
Oh no! A secular government! Anything but that! I want to go back to a theology, please. I'm tired of this whole "America" idea. Too many liberal ideas like free speech and rights for women! Anyway, this article is obviously a sneak attack on Obama. The author seems as if they're interviewing Obama for a position as a preacher. By now, you're probably aware of my stance on religion and how it's so beyond retarded that it would be any kind of prerequisite to be president of the most powerful and (seemingly) advanced country in the world. I just can't even fathom how intelligent people would still come to the conclusion that it makes any logical sense. However, when speaking in realistic terms, it's good to point out that: A. If the country's majority is Christian, then saying you're anything but Christian is a sure loss B. Being "Christian" is no indicator as to how intelligent a person is in general (Bush), nor is it any indicator as to how he or she runs the country C. If I were running for president and knew the only way to make any legitimate changes to the government was to say I was Christian, you bet your sweet ass I'd say "give me the tambourine, baby, it's time for some gospel!" Personally, I think anyone who votes for someone based largely on their religion is a complete idiot. It's idiots like that that got Bush into the White House (twice, people! TWICE. TWO TIMES.) That's like voting someone into the White House just because they survived a bunch of freak accidents and then got out of a P.O.W. camp alive. OH WAIT, tons of idiots are going to do that! Silly me. Nonetheless, I have this sinking feeling that the majority of people are going to vote for McCain and put him in the White House. Although I don't think he's quite as retarded as George W. Bush (that would be some feat), and might actually do some good, he does not represent the change I want to see in this country. Also, why won't he share those delicious acorns in his cheeks?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2008, 10:53:28 PM » |
|
rofl, scott, stop making me laugh so freaking much!!! 
a few things:
Christians also have perfect white skin, perfect teeth, beautiful long hair and a beard, just like Jesus!
so thaaaaaat's the source of my struggle - my beard hasn't grown in yet! damn, i guess i'll be waiting a lot longer than i'd thought....
(caution: rant ahead)
the quotes in red, particularly those in brackets (the parentheticals), are really disheartening. "god girl's" (not even gunna touch that one) irrational inferences & assumptions, insults, and unabashed anti-liberal bias are such an unbelievable turn-off to christianity for me; her supposed impartiality oozes condescension, and the whole article screams 'superiority complex!!!!!!!!!!!!%!#@$#!'
this bit alone i find deplorable (and it supports my point): Obama is trying to be a good person. This is commendable as far as it goes, but it is not Christian.
not only is it horribly patronising, it also implies that being a good person has nothing to do with christianity - which echoes the notion that, so long as you accept Jesus as your saviour, you've a free ticket no matter how reprehensible your behaviour may be.
as if the BS-shoveling wasn't enough, there's this little gem just prior to the interview:
It is only fair to take Obama at his word and in context. Please take the time to read the following lengthy article, after all, he might be the next President and leader of the free world. My only purpose is only to answer the question, is Obama a Christian according to biblical, historic standards? I have added my parenthetical comments in bold italics..
let's translate this from bullshit to english:
In spite of the fact that I've spent so much time exposing Obama as the final Morningstar/Champion of Satan that he is, I'd like to pretend for just a moment that my intent here was honourable. For those of you in the Christ Club, I'll add the snark in brackets so you know exactly what parts to nod & agree with.
now for a little snark of my own:
about mccain, scott, don't you realise that winter's coming?
it may be a long one.
=P
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 11:01:14 PM by pyroclasticlux »
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2008, 12:15:22 PM » |
|
rofl, scott, stop making me laugh so freaking much!!!
a few things:
Christians also have perfect white skin, perfect teeth, beautiful long hair and a beard, just like Jesus!
so thaaaaaat's the source of my struggle - my beard hasn't grown in yet! damn, i guess i'll be waiting a lot longer than i'd thought....
(caution: rant ahead)
the quotes in red, particularly those in brackets (the parentheticals), are really disheartening. "god girl's" (not even gunna touch that one) irrational inferences & assumptions, insults, and unabashed anti-liberal bias are such an unbelievable turn-off to christianity for me; her supposed impartiality oozes condescension, and the whole article screams 'superiority complex!!!!!!!!!!!!%!#@$#!'
this bit alone i find deplorable (and it supports my point): Obama is trying to be a good person. This is commendable as far as it goes, but it is not Christian.
not only is it horribly patronising, it also implies that being a good person has nothing to do with christianity - which echoes the notion that, so long as you accept Jesus as your saviour, you've a free ticket no matter how reprehensible your behaviour may be.
as if the BS-shoveling wasn't enough, there's this little gem just prior to the interview:
It is only fair to take Obama at his word and in context. Please take the time to read the following lengthy article, after all, he might be the next President and leader of the free world. My only purpose is only to answer the question, is Obama a Christian according to biblical, historic standards? I have added my parenthetical comments in bold italics..
let's translate this from bullshit to english:
In spite of the fact that I've spent so much time exposing Obama as the final Morningstar/Champion of Satan that he is, I'd like to pretend for just a moment that my intent here was honourable. For those of you in the Christ Club, I'll add the snark in brackets so you know exactly what parts to nod & agree with.
now for a little snark of my own:
about mccain, scott, don't you realise that winter's coming?
it may be a long one.
=P
Yeah, it's embarrassing to read such idiocy. Every "this isn't Christianity" is like nails on chalkboard because it's the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended). Sorry, but I have to play the devil's advocate here (zing!). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2008, 12:43:37 PM » |
|
rofl i think the part about that article that got me most was just how blatantly insulting it was to the reader's intelligence. not only does the writer have ill intentions to begin with, but she's even talking down to the reader with her little parentheticals. it's not just 'these are my opinions,' it's 'hahah look at that! i'm so much smarter than him, but you, reader, obviously need some help realising this too, so just to be sure, let me point these out.' ps. you're really on a roll today, scott |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 12:47:14 PM by pyroclasticlux »
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
melidere
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2008, 02:05:02 PM » |
|
Whoever wrote the article needs to learn how to use "its" and "it's" properly.
Ahh, someone else who knows how to use these correctly. What a relief!
I have to say, when I first showed this article to Tara, I edited out the embarrassing commentaries and printed it out on paper; unfortunately I couldn't do the same for the rest of you. I don't even like how she went about the article, even though I agree with her main point. Especially since I'm an evangelical (well, Christian Reformed to be more precise) and I have trouble remembering exactly when I made that commitment to Christ (dates and times were never especially important to me, except birthdays). Anyway, the point is I'll not be voting for McCain or Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2008, 02:22:21 PM » |
|
Whoever wrote the article needs to learn how to use "its" and "it's" properly.
Ahh, someone else who knows how to use these correctly. What a relief!
I have to say, when I first showed this article to Tara, I edited out the embarrassing commentaries and printed it out on paper; unfortunately I couldn't do the same for the rest of you. I don't even like how she went about the article, even though I agree with her main point. Especially since I'm an evangelical (well, Christian Reformed to be more precise) and I have trouble remembering exactly when I made that commitment to Christ (dates and times were never especially important to me, except birthdays). Anyway, the point is I'll not be voting for McCain or Obama.
Bam! All I care about is that people vote with their own mind after researching the issues and focusing on where they stand. So yes, vote but don't vote for some idiot just because they're Christian and you're Christian. Vote for them because they are going to be the best choice for all the people they're going to answer to. That means people of all religions and beliefs. What's important is that they defend our rights whether they agree with what we say or do. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Paraphrased Voltaire quote |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The important thing is not to stop questioning; curiosity has its own reason for existing." -- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
pyroclasticlux
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2008, 06:43:03 AM » |
|
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Paraphrased Voltaire quote (or a paraphrased peter griffin quote, hahah) ...Vote, but don't vote for some idiot just because they're Christian and you're Christian. Vote for them because they are going to be the best choice for all the people they're going to answer to. i agree with scott on this one. we are electing a president, not a pope; the candidate has to have in mind what's best for the entire country, not just look at what the christians want. the constitution states that we've freedom of religion here, so a vote based on christian beliefs essentially ignores the rest of us who don't follow that faith.
it's things like this that completely, thoroughly turn me off to organised religion. it seems like true faith comes with the pre-requisite of abandoning logic and reason.
i'd rather vote for someone who wants to help ALL of us, not just cater to the whims of a certain type.
***
also, i'd like to mention two articles i've found interesting.
the first examines why sarah palin is setting back women 10000 years (or perhaps only 6000, as she believes that's how old the earth is):
http://www.slate.com/id/2201330/
and the second definitely will appeal to those grammar-nazis among us - diagramming sarah palin's awkward sentences:
http://www.slate.com/id/2201158/
enjoy (=
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 06:46:30 AM by pyroclasticlux »
|
Logged
|
l'humour est culturel; le rire est universel
(=
|
|
|
|
